All Talked Out - Debates Over - Who Won?

Post by **yovargas** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:29 pm

You know, the reality of who this one specific Joe might be is pretty irrelevant to the point McCain was making.

Post by **Cerin** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:44 pm

yovargas wrote:You know, the reality of who this one specific Joe might be is pretty irrelevant to the point McCain was making.

Actually, it's very relevant and symbolically apropos. Joe is largely a fraud (that is, the way he represented himself was largely false), and McCain's point was largely a fraud, since either in his present circumstances or if he bought the plumber business, Joe would get a tax cut under Obama. So McCain used an example that was a bunch of lies, to present a point that was a bunch of lies.

I wonder if he really will continue to use good ol' Joe in his stump speeches, the way they continued for a time to use the Bridge to Nowhere line in Palin's speeches even after it had been shown to be untrue.

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:04 am

Mrs.Underhill wrote:If someone wants a good laugh, a caption contest here!
Warning: unflattering tongue-flicking picture of McCain from the last debate:
http://www.debatableland.com/the_debata ... -lies.html

And on the subject of random silliness, 20 ways to make the debates actually worth watching.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:06 am

Very well said Cerin. Much is made of this average American taking his case directly to Senator Obama and then having his cause embraced by Senator McCain. But then we find out that the man is simply not the man he claimed to be. He does not earn that kind of money to have made that complaint in the first place. He is a rightwing idealogue who has an axe to grind even though those policies do not impact him as he claimed. Tonight, we find out that he is not even a full licensed plumber. In short, he has no case. Period.

Of course McCain and Palin will continue to use Joe the Plumber in their stump speeches. Just like Paul Simon wrote... "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

In the John Ford western THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE a reporter finds out that a popular politicians career and popularity is based on a fraud and lie. He wants to know what to do with the information. His editor tells him

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Post by **vison** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:53 am

Maria wrote:I thought both candidates hands looked wimpy. Obviously, neither of them has ever done much with their hands.

Why would they? They aren't Abraham Lincoln.

Post by **Maria** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:09 pm

It just tells you they have no physical hobbies of any sort. I haven't decided if that's a good thing or a bad thing. A quick googling of politician images shows that Putin, for instance, has strong looking hands, probably due to judo, but that doesn't mean much. Bush does too, but Bill Clinton doesn't. Lieberman doesn't. Colin Powell does. Reagan didn't.

I just think it's weird when a guy's hands look weaker than mine, and I can't even open a new jelly jar easily anymore.

edit: to change to past tense on Reagan.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:34 pm

"You got city hands Mr. Hooper"
Robert Shaw as Quint
JAWS

Post by **N.E. Brigand** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:22 am

sauronsfinger wrote:It now appears that Joe the Plumber
1- is not named Joe...

That's funny because he'll forever be "Joe the Plumber", but not otherwise relevant. As <David Bratman> observes, that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher goes by "Joe" just puts him in the company of Woodrow Wilson and Walter Mondale.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:47 am

Brigand.....It darn well is relevant. Just about everything about this Joe the Plumber is a fiction from start to finish. Including his name. Why do the Republicans insist on caricatures of middle class Americans instead of the real thing? Joe the Plumber is a caricature and a fiction. That is now well established.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:05 am

Why is it impossible that they believed "Joe" was as he presented himself? You're acting as if he was a deliberate creation of the McCain campaign. Yet his first contact with either candidate was with Obama.

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:10 am

This is far off the current discussion, but I thought the whole point of Joe was to illustrate that Obama's tax plan was bad for a segment of the population. It didn't ya know really have anything specifically to do with Joe.

Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:11 am

Exactly, Holby.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:21 am

Does truth and reality count for nothing?

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:22 am

Who the guy really is is irrelevant to the point.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:26 am

So truth and reality does count for nothing in your opinion?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:28 am

Yes. Whether or not this "Joe" really was a guy who wanted to buy a business that would put him in a tax bracket Obama wants to raise, the fact is that there are such people, and it's a fair question for the debate. This Joe being a ringer doesn't mean there really are no Joes. Discussing the details of this Joe's life is a side issue, and I think an irrelevant one, given the real issues at stake here.

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:29 am

sauronsfinger wrote:So truth and reality does count for nothing in your opinion?

This is a great example of twisting what I said to meet your own needs.

The truth is, McCain was utilizing Joe to illustrate a point. Period. End of story. Anything else is superfluous and exterraneous.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:37 am

NO. It is not period. It is not end of the story. You saying it does not make it so.

There would be no such creation as Joe the Plumber if John McCain had not mentioned him over 20 times in his debate performance. The facts are simple and undeniable.

Joe is really Sam.
He is not a plumber by the laws and regulations of Ohio.
He does not make nearly enough money to qualify for the higher tax rate.
He is a tax deadbeat.
He attempted to portray himself as something he was not for a political point against a candidate he did not like.
Any political point built on a lie is worthless.
John McCain knew Barack Obamas tax policies for a long time now. It was this fictional Joe the Plumber that gave them a voice and a face and a hook with the American people. And that creation was a fraud.

This reminds me of the rabble rouser Al Sharpton raising holy hell in New York City over Tawanna Brawley being raped by white police officers. Weeks later we found out the whole thing was a lie and never happened. What did Sharpton then say. "Thats not the point. It does not matter if Tawanna Brawley was raped or not" And he attempted to switch the public outrage to a generic discussion of white racism.

To some of us, truth and reality do matter.

Someone making a strong political point should build their case on something substantive. Not something artificial which falls apart with the first winds than come along.

Truth and reality do count for a great deal with me.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:46 am

sf, I'm really surprised that you don't get what so many of us are trying to say.

For the purposes of the debate, McCain brought up an example of a small businessman who he said would be hurt by Obama's tax plan. The purpose of that part of the debate was to talk about the pluses and minuses of the two tax plans. It was not to examine the soul of Samuel Wurzelbalchen or whatever his name is. S.W. was not a true example of a person in the situation McCain outlined. But the fact that he wasn't doesn't refute McCain's argument. They were talking about their tax plans. It is not a lie that someone with a small business earning more than $250K per year might have to pay more taxes under Obama's plan—the issue was whether or not this was true and how much, not whether S.W. has his plumber's license.

Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:48 am

Yes. I don't agree with the point that McCain was making, but I understand and even respect it. The fact that the person that he chose to use as the face of that point turned out to have some issues (and which of us don't?) is really irrelevant.