"He didn't ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn't recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks."

I've lost count of the number of privacy-invading personal attacks that have been launched on Joe the Plumber. Glenn Reynolds had a roundup yesterday (I especially loved Iowa Hawk), and the bottom line question is this:

"In what kind of nation, do the media investigate critics more than candidates?"

But parenthetically, in what kind of anti-virus company does a blog that asks questions like that get blocked with a message like this?

"Trend Micro Internet Security has identified this Web page as undesirable."

Address: http://politics.boogietrain.nl/ [etc.]

Credibility: Dangerous

Anyway, the attacks have gotten so frenzied that Michelle Malkin has called this "Joe The Plumber Derangement Syndrome. JTPDS." And there's a logo to go with it:

Because he asked Barack Obama a simple question, Joe has been subjected to the kind of scrutiny never visited on Barack Obama, much less Joe Biden. Today's Detroit Free Press is no exception. In today's Detroit Free Press, Mitch Albom devotes an entire column -- "Average Joe can't fix America's pipes" -- to this now-trendy litany of attacks:

It turns out Joe has no plumber's license.

Joe isn't in the plumbers union.

Joe never did a plumbers apprenticeship.

Joe's business likely would not be taxed under Obama's proposal.

Joe might even get a tax cut under Obama's proposal.

Joe doesn't believe in Social Security.

Joe's first name isn't Joe, it's Samuel.

And Samuel hasn't paid his taxes.

And that's just as we go to press. By the time you read this, Joe may be a member of the Weathermen. None of this surprises me. It is what you get in a country that seems to think everything is a form of "American Idol."

But let's stick with the reality TV standard for a second. If in fact the country considers everything to be a form of "American Idol," then why is private life of an aspiring small business owner of more interest than Barack Obama's drug dealer?

"It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama. You have not tried to find Barack Obama's drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, Dreams of My Father. Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus, there is a terrific lack of balance here."

I guess the rule is that a small time plumber with dreams of a better future is more worthy of press scrutiny than the guy who talks of dreams but implements dream-crushing policies. Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that the exact amount of money that Joe owed for his past traffic tickets is a bigger MSM concern than the future president's former drug dealer.

But I digress from from Mitch Albom. Maybe I'm complaining too much. At least Albom was nice enough to leave out the traffic tickets. And he said nothing about the now-discredited claim that Joe isn't registered to vote.

Instead, he kvetches about Joe's use of his middle name. Since when has it become a dishonest offense against liberalism to use your middle name as an appellation? Plenty of people -- liberal icons among them -- prefer their middle names (or nicknames) to their first names, and in Hollywood, many people don't use any of their given names. So Joe's using his middle name. If that's dishonest, then let's start calling Paul McCartney "James."

This is an argument? I can't think of anything more ridiculous.

Sheesh.

After running through the indictment, Albom says this:

...when you dig in, you see his circumstance might be the exact opposite of that for which he's being touted.

The way they have done a complete, invasive background check on this citizen is shocking. While few of us would withstand close scrutiny, what annoys me the most is that the dirt-digging has been done by the news media, and they have now essentially sicced the bureaucrats on this guy:

The plumber's union and the city of Toledo are on Wurzelbacher's tail after he acknowledged that he did not have a plumber's license.

"Joe the plumber really isn't a plumber," said Thomas Joseph, business manager of UA Local 50 of the Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics Union, whose national membership has endorsed Obama. (Joseph said Wurzelbacher applied for an apprentice program in 2003 but never completed the work.)

Wurzelbacher said he did not need a plumber's license to do residential work with Newell Heating & Plumbing, but David Golis, a Toledo building-inspections official, disputed that. "We were just discussing that we will send a letter to the owner of Newell reminding him" of the city's requirement that all who do plumbing work be licensed or in apprentice or journeyman programs, Golis said.

But dare that unlicensed rooter guy ask an impertinent question of a media god, and all hell will break loose.

Now, while most people could care less about Joe's alleged tax liens, I actually do care. In fact, it makes me love the guy. Seriously, I'm on his side 100 per cent! And while I'm sorry for him, I think this particular attack may be illustrative of a real lesson going to the heart of what's wrong with this country (at least, where we're headed). Taxation is crushing ordinary people, and small potential entrepreneurs like Joe are hit the hardest. Yet rich snobs like Obama and Biden want to tax people more, while pontificating about how "patriotic" it is to pay taxes.

Few will say it, but I think it's more a badge of traditional patriotism to have a tax lien than to boast about how patriotic it is to pay taxes.

From the Declaration of Independence:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.

As to whether Joe's business would be taxed more heavily under Obama's proposal, the Christian Science Monitor said it likely would be. Others are quibbling, and I don't doubt that a room full of economists could hold a debate on the subject. Do any of these people recall what started the debate? When the Obama entourage landed in front of his house, Joe just happened to be lucky enough to be able to ask Barack Obama a pointed question about whether he would pay more in taxes. At that point, Obama the candidate could easily have said this:

"I doubt you'd pay more, Joe. In fact, you might pay less in taxes. I'd have to know more about your total income, your potential expenses, and your overhead."

Another major crime is that "Joe does not believe in Social Security." Hey, many of the nation's top economists don't believe in it either. It is widely considered to be no longer viable and on the verge of collapse. Anyone with a lick of sense should be thinking in terms of providing for old age independently. Believing in that demagogic illusion we call Social Security might not be as silly as believing in the Easter Bunny, but once again, Joe merely demonstrates that he has more sense than his critics (whose moralistic clucking reminds me of the way a fundamentalist Christian might solemnly intone "he does not believe in God.")

Mitch Albom's conclusion comes dangerously close to what would have been my conclusion:

...McCain is now getting criticized. And how many people will want to hire an unlicensed plumber who owes money on his taxes?

And we haven't even mentioned a butt crack.

I guess I'm slow on the uptake. I have this deeply ingrained belief that Americans ought to be allowed a little privacy. Especially, you know, from those who champion the right to privacy in places like the bedroom.

(Perhaps they think the right to privacy only applies to people who agree with them.)

MORE: If Team Obama happened to drive down my street, I probably wouldn't want to get caught asking Barack Obama any tough questions because of the consequences.

Well then, suppose I were to ask a question about my inability to ask a question? Something like this:

Senator Obama, if I were to ask you a tough question, why would my personal lifestyle be considered more worthy of investigation than yours?

Wouldn't want to be subject to an investigation.