It's pretty obvious who Joe the Plumber is voting for
 

Oh, come on! It's pretty f'ing obvious who "Joe the Plumber" is voting for...

:rolleyes:

I speak about the same way, but won't tip my hand as to who or what I vote for. You may believe something that I'm saying along those lines, but ultimately who I vote for is between me and me alone, not my wife, mother, father, pastor, etc.

Maybe he should be renamed Joe the Attention Whore.

BTW, last night during the debate, I found it exasperating to have both McCain and Obama, each in turn, speaking into the camera, to Joe. Talk about whoring!

(Yes, I'm saying my candidate of choice was whoring, last night, if only just a little. And here I thought he had stalwart integrity, e.g. not caving in to wear that silly flag pin. But I'm still voting for him. Because IMHO he's still the far better candidate.)

I could have sworn that I read that Joe wasn't registered to vote on Reddit this morning. He's a troll and should be temp banned from America.

jesus.
soon we'll be getting treated to infotainment about how betty crocker is to vote.
and maybe something about how the quaker oats guy is leaning as well.

Joe is actually his middle name. I saw that too, but they since corrected it;

He's a Quaker, so I already know how that guy is leaning.

:thumbsup:

Ah, thanks.

Natural Law Party? Why would he support McCain? Natural Law is very much anti-war.

but betty crocker, eternal donna reed/soccer mom...i kinda suprised that the republicans haven't hired a stand-in for her that palin can use to talk about "the average person"....

Why do some people take voting to be so personal?
Who I vote for and why I'm voting for them and yes/no on issues is part of the process, to me.
Sometimes I'm just genuinely curious about someone else's reasoning for their votes, sometimes my experience and knowledge on topics helps those with less time to dedicate to getting the whole picture, and sometimes I want someone else's knowledge or we might be trying to sway the other.
But I never see my political opinions as personal or something that should be kept to myself, unless I'm about to discuss my points of view with someone who can't handle the conversation and will either get mad or belligerent; but that's case by case, not a general maxim of mine.

Because people have the abilty to demean someone's choices whatever they may be, this isn't limited to politics or religion. You may wish to wear it on your sleeve. I don't and don't wish to have to defend or decry someone else's position or viewpoints.

I'm always curious on why people vote for a person also. I'll ask them.. I don't belittle their beliefs usually, I just ask them why they don't like the other candidate and then point out where they are wrong and try to show them proof of it. I think that approach is always better and certainly brings about a more informed process.

too bad everyone can't do this, especially when it's a vote of historic nature as this one is.

Well the plumber did say that Obama talks like Sammy Davis Junior. I'm not sure if Obama considers that a complement or not but it might help him with the rat pack vote.:)

And that I'm willing to engage in a discussion, but to actually tell you who I'm pulling or pulled the switch for. I won't tell you or discuss that.

I see a huge range of behaviors between wearing something on my sleeve and never discussing something.
I listed three ways I discuss politics with others that I don't see as wearing my viewpoint on my sleeve. That phrase means to me that someone would know by looking at me or making a nuisance out of my beliefs.

I never really saw my votes as a call to defend the viewpoint of another person. In the case of a politician, I would just say I didn't agree with that aspect if I didn't, I don't feel the need to agree with everything someone else believes in. And in the case of a ballot measure I wouldn't vote in support of something I didn't agree with.

But I also don't discuss things with people who demean me, politics or otherwise. If I was surrounded by pricks, I'd probably just end up keeping all my opinions to myself. I just grew up hearing to never discuss politics and religion with strangers but I also do and I'm usually ending up with some sort of profitable conversation and sometimes even relationships from it.

I think you've hit a key point smooth. Many people are told to never discuss politics and religion. Even if the person is of the opposite belief set or political map you are, it should be talked about. I think talking about it always helps people see things better. It may not change your mind, but hopefully, the person can say they learned something new and may take a better look at all parties involved.

If more people talked about it openly and honestly, perhaps we would see a shift in the way voters behaved ... they would make an informed decision on the candidates (all parties) instead of just quoting partisan rhetoric and taking it as fact.

If you are part of an organization or group of people who tend to vote in a bloc and you wish to vote independently from that group, notifying people who you are voting for can create tension and issues with the relationships within that group.

This is why it isn't any business to my employer, my pastor (when I was a practicing catholic), congregation, school, etc.

I'm happy to discuss issues and have conversation, but asking who I'm going to vote for I will not disclose.

If I didn't have the choice to have secret balloting, no assocation of my ballot to my name, no curtain to providve privacy as I pull the lever or puch the ballot, then maybe it would be a difference for me.

I live in a very democratic neighborhood, I'm not interested in voting for the rolls that are expected in my neighborhood. It also doesn't mean that since I'm a registered republican, that you can guarantee that I will vote party lines and vote republican or conservative.

Cyn, I don't take issue with people not disclosing who they are voting for. I just take issue with people (unlike you obviously) who simply vote for what I call a stupid reason or for the sake of partisan lines. I cannot stand the rhetoric from either big party side and hate how people just eat up everything a candidate says and takes it for truth.

This is funny!

1) He isn't a licensed plumber
2) He registered to vote for the first time earlier this year and he voted in the Republican Primary
3) He owes back taxes!
4) He lied about the business he was going to buy and admits that he is just thinking about some day in the future.

He is definitely not undecided and lied about it in order to try and stump Obama. I think Obama did a great job handling him.

5) he's related to Charles Keating

I forgot to mention that one!

gucci, but your comment and the subsequent 2 posters create a situation where people who are already uncomfortable discussing such things not wish to do so.

People are not going to get my analogy and probably make some other snide comment, but it creates a hostile environment in the same manner that sexual comments and behaviors do for someone who feels sexually harassed.

Haven't been following this much, but I did hear about this guy. Pure gold! Especially point 3.

Yesterday morning he was all about talking to the press and then people started digging into his background and all of the sudden he clammed up and refused to give interviews.

I wonder if he had downplayed the whole thing and not talked to the press how much digging into his past would have been done or at least made the news... It just goes how the media can tear down anyone, a week ago he was Joe "six-pack nobody" now everyone knows his business..

Er, guys, I'd do the same thing. I don't want the press digging up my past (not that I have much if any to hide) because I made a comment to a political candidate.

So the guy's not perfect? Who cares! It's as if we all need some ego buildup from relegating the man's opinions to irrelevant because he doesn't conform to our image of the perfect, informed voter.

Obviously this makes just as much sense as a conservative using Joe the Plumber as a national icon.

The Left Declares War on Joe the Plumber by Michelle Malkin on National Review Online

wow, that is some serious hatchery in that article....

I think it's just funny how joe came to the spotlight and yes, he seemed like a plant in the first place...

also..failure to pay back taxes...innnnnteresting...

the other issue: he's already given more press interviews than palin...

what..the..fark.

i believe the noun we are groping for here is "shill."
just saying.

Am I supposed to take anything Michelle "The US was right to put Japanese-Americans in internment camps" Malkin says seriously?

He has now admitted that he gets a bigger tax cut under Obama (he makes about $40,000 a year). He is not even close to buying the business (which grosses about $100,000 a year, not $250,000 as he claimed). Also if the GOP were to get their way he would be illegible to vote because his name is miss-spelled in the voter roles.
-----Added 17/10/2008 at 01 : 05 : 54-----
From the horses mouth:

Liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz walks off Fox and Friends when challenged over "Joe the Plumber" and the Obama $250k threshold, "spread the wealth", and claims of Marxism.



I really like Schultz, but he's today's whipping boy for the anti-Obama media (notice I didn't say pro-McCain... there is a difference). The perception will be that he couldn't answer the challenge on a specific point in a favorable light to Obama, pretended to be offended, then walked off. He should have stood his ground regardless of how he thinks he was treated. He's been in the business long enough to know that move was a bad one... for him and Obama. (imagine the call he surely got from the Obama team afterwards :paranoid:)

I didnt see the whole exchange so I dont know that he "pretented to be offended"

Fox can be offensive with liberal guest....asking questions, but not allowing them to respond.

But who gives a fuck about Schultz walking off the "fair and balanced" network? I think its a mistake for any liberal pundit to even appear on Fox.

I find it sad that people have to focus so much on an ordinary guy who spoke his mind.

Let's destroy him. Let's destroy his life. Let's burn him in effigy in every Obama rally.

That'll teach anyone to go against the messiah..... speak his mind and have passion.

I find it shows something pathetic about someone who has such a lead that he and his supporters are focusing on destroying 1 man for speaking his mind.

Even IF he was a plant, Obama and his supporters would be wise and show class to just ignore him, maybe address his concerns and just let it go. If he were a plant, it would make those far more desperate and trying harder to get Obama to screw up.... thus helping Obama. But giving them what they want a show of anger, destruction politics just shows a pathetic display of "same old same old" which Obama says he isn't.

And es, I know that I will be ripped because I have been extremely vocal about my dislike over Obama...... again, attack those who speak out, attack with hate and prejudice and destroy those who have opinion. To propagate your own opinion.

Lets keep emotions out of it and look at what really happened?

McCain brought him up in the debate to use him as a prop and the media fact checked the guy's story.

And that should be the end of it...and yet, McCain and Palin are still using him in a misleading way in stump speeches to suggest that Obama's tax cuts would hurt small businessmen like Joe.

Does this count as a "rip" or an "attack with hate and prejudice"?

pan:

he's not an "ordinary guy"--the he's a shill for the mc-cain camp.
it's transparent.
the idea of using him as a shill is to elicit exactly the kind of reaction that you had.
but to have that reaction, you have to leave out the fact that he's a shill.
and i don't see how you can manage that one.

there is a bigger and more complicated question of which party best represents what's left of the american working class, but it's not a discussion worth having in the context of a thread about a bit of campaign theater.

..

Look, if he's a shill, he's a shill. The people are not as dumb as you want to believe.

Perhaps, just perhaps he started out truly asking a question he believed. He got all kinds of attention for it, attention he did not expect. Then he starts talking and people see he spoke on emotion and may not be all that informed. But instead of letting McCain roll with it and looking a fool bringing him up.... you have to destroy this guy.

Why?

You're way ahead in the polls, I seriously doubt what he says will change many votes.... it's not exactly a Willie Horton/Swift Boat/Donna Rice issue that will hurt or even dent Obama's campaign..... unless he continues to rip this guy.

My feeling is most people can see what Joe the Plumber has become.... however, they still maybe able to somehow identify with him {which is what the GOP want} and by ripping him, destroying him.... you end up hurting yourself.... if you acknowledge his original question and answer it and let your answer be all the acknowledgment that he gets..... you pretty much end the whole Joe the Plumber issue and it goes away.

And Smooth I am sorry about an slight if you can link where I did not respond to you, I'dbe more than happy to.

Pan you are wrong here. His story should be checked out.

Let's reverse the rolls. If a young lady came up to McCain and said "John, 3 weeks ago I was raped and have since found out that I'm pregnant. Would you try to stop me from getting an abortion?"

Then Obama brings up her name at a debate.

Do you think the freepers and redstaters wouldn't jump all over this woman?

Now let's say they find out she wasn't raped and isn't pregnant and it was a lie the whole time.

What would happen with this story?

pan....so you want the media and the Obama supporters to continue to let McCain and Palin perpetuate bullshit about the guy and Obama's tax plan rather than present the FACTS to the American people.

Nope..I dont believe in perpetuating ignorance.

If people didn't fact check Joe's story then people would never know it was a lie and McCain would get a free pass on using false information. Hate the people digging as much as you want but as long as they aren't making stuff up and are telling the TRUTH then there is nothing wrong.

The thing I don't understand is what you are referring to when you are claiming that the Obama campaign is ripping into this Joe guy.
The only thing I saw the campaign say specifically in regards to the matter was during the debate when Obama spoke to Joe at the same level McCain spoke to Joe. He told him that he wouldn't face any fees or fine, and that he would receive a tax credit if he wanted to give his employees health care. He never doubted his belief that if he bought the company that he would actually make 250,000, in fact he responded to that dream as saying that if he was making that much, Obama feels it's fair to spread some wealth around to those less fortunate. I don't think Obama did or wants to rip Joe, I suspect he feels compassion for him and that's one of the reasons he tells McCain to his face that he doesn't mind paying higher taxes to help the middle class.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/2008-us...ml#post2540204

But if you are secure enough in your position then you stand by it and stop attacking the guy.

Like I said we all make mistakes, perhaps Joe just asked something he believed and Obama answered it. Bt people picked up on it and he bacame an attention whore.

In desperation McCain tried to use him. Now, Obama has 2 choices... "I answered that question and would be more than happy to further explain any further questions. OR........ "Let's just destroy this man..... let's have Biden insinuate he isn't even a licensed plumber..... let's make sure no one will ever want to do business with this man again... long after the election people will stay away from this poor schmuck."

I think this campaign went for the latter and that is cheap and very W/Rovish.... which I thought Obama was supposed to be above.

pan....the Obama campaign is not attacking the guy (can you point to a "rove-like" attack?).

The media and supporters are not attacking the guy by fact checking his story.

They are questioning how McCain continues to falsely present the impact of Obama's tax plan on Joe and businessmen and women like Joe.

The thing is he isn't a licensed plumber!!!!!

This is the only thing out of the Obama camp about the guy and it is true. The rest is from the media, bloggers, and other online wackjobs like us.

LOL..... well then hog tie him and burn him in effigy.

I guess living in Ohio where it is always such a battleground state we get more negative ads than most and in turn many start tuning out long before the election.

I'm just sad to see someone who may or may not have voiced a legitimate question to him, be destroyed for doing so. I find it sad that our politicians are so eager and willing to do so.

To say Obama's camp hasn't and that he is above such things, you are fooling only yourself. I'm sure there are some bloggers and we know quite a few of he media members get Tingling sensations up their legs with Obama. So they are far far from unbiased.

Just as McCain jumping at this and trying to use the man is just as pathetic but in a far different way.

Who knows, Joe the Plumber could have been a Democratic plant so they could destroy the man as McCain used him. Would make McCain look mighty foolish.

The only thing I hold McCain responsible for are the ads that say, "I'm John McCain and I approve of this message" and I would have disappointed if he hadn't taken the mic from those people at his rally and said something to them. I do also think that he should reign in Palin more, but as far as the RNC's BS I don't hold that as a blight on his personal character.

I do think that a leader can't just say or be a leader without the followers' support. I mean, you can get promoted to the manager in your workplace but still have the rest of the employees not particularly care for your personally or your authority. When that happens, projects can become a clusterfuck because there are these little clicks and power struggles over who really has authority over the group of people. So in this respect, I just don't see McCain having that kind of authority over his political party, and it makes sense because he is actually trying to use that to his advantage by arguing he's never been the doll of the RNC...which would work if he was being followed by someone, such as, the democrats. Because in Washington, you can't just do things on your own, no matter which position you hold.

So this inability of McCain's to put an end to the personal attacks that should be under his direct control is a testament to his lack of moral authority over the Republicans as a party, in my opinion. And I think that will present problems in his leadership capacity. I don't think he'll be able to lead effectively, not because he can't, but because it doesn't look like they respect him as their ultimate authority and won't listen when he says this is how it has to be.


Obama can't be held liable for things private people write on their blogs, anymore than McCain can be blamed for loons shouting bizarre shit at rallies. Now, if Obama had said we should check this guy out, rather than simply addressing his concerns during the debate, I'd impart some responsibility to him. Just like some people can do so about how McCain agitated people to concern over the Ayers connection to Obama.

For myself, however, I give McCain a pass on the Ayers issue. I do so because I really believe he's in between a rock and a hard place rather than just slinging mud for political expediency. I suspect he really, truly believes that Ayers is a piece of shit. But he can't say that publicly because he'd look petty and unforgiving to a huge chunk of people, and a lot of people who were sympathetic to Vietnam protestors in whatever flavor they came in. But to McCain, a man who endured torture for a cause he *must* believe was just or his predicament was for naught, and to come from a long line of military family members, to a person like that, someone bombing things on domestic soil to protest the war he personally suffered in a way that no one can really know the depth of how it affected him, that person will never be forgiven in his mind...such a person can't be forgiven by McCain.

If McCain were my next door neighbor, I wouldn't even try to talk to him about the reasoning of rehabilitation or unjustness of Vietnam. I wouldn't even go there, much like we know that murderers get out of prison and go work as landscapers but I wouldn't try and have a dispassionate discussion about rehabilitation or forgiveness to the father of a murdered daughter about the guy mowing his lawn. I'd keep my mouth shut regardless of how I felt about the subject. I would never let theory trump personal experience...I might believe it, I might believe it to be true, but I would not make someone who was personally affected by something believe their experience was less valuable than what the rest of the data shows. This isn't about anecdotal evidence, but the very specific instances of people who are negatively and personally affected by something that happened in their own lives that comprises who they are as a human being.

pan you have yet to comment on how you or you think others would respond if the role was reversed with a lady asking about being pregnant from rape. Or if rape is to polarizing for you what if she said that the doctors give her a 75% chance of dieing if she goes through with the pregnancy, she is a single mother with 2 kids (father died in Iraq), and if she dies the kids will be put in homes.

But then it comes out she isn't pregnant and doesn't have kids...

I'm still trying to understand how fact checking his story and the Obama campaign noting that he would pay less taxes under Obama's plan is "destroying" the guy.

BTW, McCain has invited Joe to join him on the campaign trail.

McCain railed against Obama destroying the guy privacy after he brought the guy up during the debates some 20 times. This is a basic GOP political move- do or say something and then blame the other side of doing it.

How the fuck do you compare something like that to this????????

WOW.

i have to say..the guy has to be something...

i mean, from what i've read and understood about his business, etc, he would still be taxed LESS under obama than mccain, but he likes mccain more bc he's afraid obama will eventually tax people making 100K or less more....

just be up front and say that and he'd be fine, but to try to loop it around like it has been so that 'gee, i'm working hard to buy a business that will be taxed more under mccain than obama...but i'm ok with that bc i'm afraid of something obama may do in the future..."
just kinda odd.

i'm all for checking it out, but i think the general populace has seen it for the nonevent that it is.

to quote the Great Taz: 'just anotha victim'

What difference does it make whether Joe the Plumber was really planning to buy a plumbing business or whether he was a phony trying to trap Obama? The fact is that he got Obama to admit on camera that his plan was to redistribute people's wealth. That's wrong. If I want to redistribute any wealth I might have, that's my right. It's not the government's right to redistribute it for me.

So any income tax system that results in someone paying a higher amount than someone else is wrong and violates their rights? The only way to implement such a system would be to send a tax bill for the same amount to everyone regardless of income. Even a flat rate tax would result in redistribution of income. I think when Obama mentioned redistribution of wealth he really meant income, as there is was no discussion about taxing net worth. I imagine even McCain would admit to being in favor of high income groups paying more than lower ones since he was against the Bush tax cuts.

A tax plan that bills everyone an equal amount is also wrong since lower income people would pay a higher percentage of their income than higher income people would. I would support a flat tax rate across the board for everyone. Why should a person be penalized for earning enough to move into an increased tax bracket. If I move into a higher tax bracket, I don't magically get more or better services from the government.

You're right about wealth/income. I'm just recalling Obama's statement from memory and could have substituted wealth for income.

If Joe the Plumber, real or fictional, has managed to become more successful, Obama has no right to redistribute Joe's income. That right is Joe's.

Easy, I just used the keyboard and typed the question.

The reason they are equatable is one of the major issues the right says about the left is that they will raise your taxes. And one of the major issues the left says about the right is that they will ban abortion. They are equatable in this sense. Now please tell me what would fox news do if this happened.

*cough, splutter* 2 terms of Bush The Younger.

How long can some of the people be fooled for?

[;) just for otto]

maybe you mean, shouldn't have the right to redistribute wealth rather than doesn't have the right, because the government certainly does have the right to do so. and contrary to some posts, it's not your personal wealth. you do realize that the greenbacks in your wallet are owned by the government that prints them?

amend the claim to, "the government should not have the right to distribute wealth I've earned" and the argument starts to gain traction as an ideal. but the claim that the government does not have the right to do what it wants with your personal wealth is factually wrong on both counts.

I would also point (though I believe it was mentioned above) that ALL taxation is a redistribution of wealth. The conservative philosophy, generally, is one of "fairness" - that each person should have an equivalent portion of their wealth redistributed. That the conservative method is to claim that non-conservatives are the only ones who desire redistribution is simply disingenuous.

To the point of redistributing wealth less from those that presently have more redistributed (i.e. lowering taxes on the wealthy) as an issue of restoring "fairness", my question is: why is that fair? What is the determination of fairness when it comes to tax brackets (flat, progressive or regressive)? Often a conservative will point to the figures which demonstrate (and I'm paraphrasing them here) that the top 1% pay 50% of the taxes collected as evidence that they are treated unfairly. I fail to see the congruency between that statistic and the definition of fairness. Why is 75% not the fair amount? Or 90%?

Do wealthy people not benefit more from a well funded military, public infrastructure, police, fire fighters, etc. vs. non-wealthy people? Wealthy people have more to lose, for one thing. For another, without a stable and far reaching society wealthy people acquire less - less means of distribution equals less sales. To loosely capture this in a sound bite: it takes money to make money.

Since wealthy people benefit the most from society and have the most to lose, "fairness" would indicate they should pay the lion's share of costs of maintaining society which is, by extension, their own collection of wealth and the ability to collect it.

I don't know I don't watch Faux News.

The right will never ban abortion because it keeps one issued pro lifers voting for them.... you ban abortion, you lose some of those votes because they will latch onto a new issue that the other side will have.
-----Added 20/10/2008 at 01 : 41 : 28-----
Good question...... given the 2 candidates we have this time around obviously they can be fooled this election......

paul krugman's edito from this morning's ny times says what is to my mind the obvious about this joe-the-plumber-the-shill as over against actual working people...and about the republicans in relation to actually existing working people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/op...rugman.html?hp

awesome editorial an just states the obvious ...loved it

Nice article, someone ought to give that Krugman guy some kind of award.

1. It really is terrible that Samuel J. (PK - it stands for "Joe") Wurzelbacher goes by his middle name, he's obviously trying to be someone he's not. Jerk - he had no business asking that question.

2. He's not even a licensed plumber in his state because he's moved around a bit following his ex-wife so he can be near his kid as she has custody, so he's getting on the job training working under his bosses license. Damn his 15 years experience, he shouldn't have asked that question.

3. He doesn't even know how to pay taxes, he's freakin 1300 behind. I'm sure we'll hear Mr. Rangle offer some insights on his behalf on how something so that appears so egregious might be an honest mistake, but until he pays it off - he has no business asking questions about taxes. As Samuel might say "that's one good thing about this, I didn't have to find out the next time I bought a house.

4. He and his boss had recently discussed the possibility of him taking over the business, but until that happens, he had absolutely no business asking that question.

I'm sorry I can't provide any direct links to the above quotes, it's just something I heard from Samuel when he was being interviewed. He must not have mentioned these insignificant details to the media. They're just excuses anyway. Joe Biden and Barack Obama have every right to be mocking him, as do all of you.

Spread the wealth! It's patriotic to do something the goverment forces you to do. Until that time, you have every right as a wealthy senator to donate some 3300 dollars in total to charity. You've done your part. Anything I do more than what the government asks, consider it my little treat to the little guy.

Liberals HATE Joe for the same reason they hate Sara Palin. They're both threats to their party. It has nothing to do with either inexperience or not going by your first name. Liberal reaction to them is as you would expect. The awards shouldn't stop with Paul Krugman.

Liberals don't hate Joe, they just see him for what he obviously is: a very poor poster boy for the "people who will suffer if Obama become president" demographic. It's a shame that McCain sought to exploit Joe because it is precisely because he did that we're here talking about Joe.

It's too bad that there weren't any money managers confronting Obama on the campaign trail...

If there are liberals who hate Palin, it would take a real douche to be unable to see that the feeling was mutual. I don't like Palin as a politician, perhaps she is a nice person... That being said, I'm pretty sure Joe the Plumber would make a better president than her.

'
of course he would: he's already been vetted more than palin, he's given more interviews, and from what he's said, i actually kinda know where he stands on issues..unlike with palin


he also doesn't need cue cards and if he was a puppet for mccain/ shill, spokes person 'joe sixpack' then he learned his role more quickly and delivers it with more conviction than palin....


so yea, he'd beat her horribly in a general election