All Talked Out - Debates Over - Who Won?

[sauronsfinger]

Please do not try to treat me like the village idiot. I know darn well what you are saying. I reject it. I understand your point and recoil from it completely. The whole premise is based on a lie designed to score political points. John McCain could have made his point about taxes over 250K for weeks and weeks and weeks but he failed to find a hook for it. Then this Ohio man comes along, confronts Obama for five mintues and gets his 15 mintues of fame. The McCain latches onto him because finally he has a real life face and story to put on his tax objections.

I get that.

But the whole thing is based on fraud. Just like Sharpton and Tawanna Brawley in New York.

Why do you think people all over the country are ridiculing this Joe today? It was based on a fiction. A caricature. It may have as well been a cartoon. Go and rent the old film MEET JOHN DOE and find out what happens when a good cause is based on a false story and fraud. See how the American people react to being hoodwinked.

Prim - I get the point. I simply reject it utterly as a fraud.

Does truth and reality count for nothing here?

[Cerin]

I thought we don't try to convince here, but to understand the opposing viewpoint. Seems to me everyone is trying to convince sf that he is wrong, rather than trying to understand his point of view.

[River]

Just out of curiosity, did McCain misrepresent "Joe the Plumber" to the world or did "Joe the Plumber" misrepresent himself to McCain who then passed the story along without vetting it first? I ask because the former is lying; the latter is carelessness on McCain's part (and it's wise not to confuse the two). I haven't been following this very well and whenever accusations get bandied about I always like to make sure the finger's being pointed in the right direction.

Of course, if you turn "Joe the Plumber" into a hypothetical person the question being asked still stands. It was an error to present him as a real person, yes, but the question still stands.

ETA: X-posted with Prim who answered my question. Seems like Joe the Plumber's a bit dishonest...

[Primula Baggins]

Okay, if McCain used an overhead projector to make the same point about tax brackets, and the overhead projector film caught fire, would that invalidate McCain's point and make him a liar?

He picked the wrong guy for his "real-life" example. But at the time McCain picked him, he thought Joe was who he said he was. It's not McCain's fault that Joe misrepresented himself. Nothing about that invalidates McCain's argument. What invalidated McCain's argument, if anything, is the facts of Obama's tax plan.

[Cerin]

Okay, if McCain used an overhead projector to make the same point about tax brackets, and the overhead projector film caught fire, would that invalidate McCain's point and make him a liar?

I've not seen anyone suggest that McCain lied. sf's point, as I understand it, is that what gave McCain's example potency and life, what caught people's attention and interest, what made the point effective was the idea of this real life person in this real life situation. The fact that Joe wasn't the person in the life situation that he led Obama to believe he was (which McCain then seized upon to make his political points), sort of sucks that life and potency back out of the example, that the fictitious but believed to be real Joe invested in it in the first place. No, it doesn't invalidate the points McCain was trying to make, but at the same time, it isn't entirely irrelevant to the political dynamics of the situation to observe that what captured everyone's imagination so thoroughly turned out to be a fiction.

[vison]

If McCain keeps on talking about Joe the Plumber now, then what is he doing? Everyone, even McCain, now knows that Joe the Plumber is not what he represented himself to be.

All Mr. McCain has to do is mention that fact, and all will be cool. But if he keeps on as he began, discussing Joe the Plumber as if Joe the Plumber was what he pretended to be, then it is not merely using Joe the Plumber as an example, it is being dishonest.

He could say, "Bob the Plumber" and maybe he should.

I don't always agree with sf, but I certainly see his point here.

[Holbytla]

Okay, if McCain used an overhead projector to make the same point about tax brackets, and the overhead projector film caught fire, would that invalidate McCain's point and make him a liar?

I've not seen anyone suggest that McCain lied. sf's point, as I understand it, is that what gave McCain's example potency and life, what caught people's attention and interest, what made the point effective was the idea of this real life person in this real life situation. The fact that Joe wasn't the person in the life situation that he led Obama to believe he was (which McCain then seized upon to make his political points), sort of sucks that life and potency back out of the example, that the fictitious but believed to be real Joe invested in it in the first place. No, it doesn't invalidate the points McCain was trying to make, but at the same time, it isn't entirely irrelevant to the political dynamics of the situation to observe that what captured everyone's imagination so thoroughly turned out to be a fiction.

No that isn't what resonated with me at all. In fact it turned me off, just like the bracelets and Hillary talking to Betty the Baker from Biloxi and all of the other political gimmickry.
What I took from it and what was the point was that McCain was trying to make is that Obama's tax plan was inneffective for people with the American Dream. All the references to Joe were just a well reference to something else. Joe was a symbol. Joe became a media driven event post debate.

There are two separate issues here and people are trying to combine them to suit their needs.

[Primula Baggins]

That seems to be it: it's two separate issues. Because I do think it's a problem for McCain that Joe was not what he was presented to be; it's another thing that speaks to the judgment (or lack of it) being shown by his campaign. In that sense, yes, truth matters. They should have been sure that what Joe said was true before they focused on him so strongly.

But that's a post-debate issue. In the contest of the debate, of the words that were said and the arguments that were made that night, it is not relevant.

[sauronsfinger]

When John McCain makes a fictional character the centerpiece of his debate performance, you would think that a prudent person would have exercised due dilligence and sent somebody to meet with the Ohio man to check him out. Obviously that was not done. Or worse, it was done and the results did not matter one iota.

I would have no problem with John McCain discussing the tax impact upon any person in those hypothetical circumstances. But that is not how it was presented. It was presented as a real hardship upon a real person that had been thrust front and center into the news pages and on our TV screens.

Maybe I am the odd man out here but I do feel that truth and reality are always relevant.

[Cerin]

There are two separate issues here and people are trying to combine them to suit their needs.

Or perhaps they don't quite see it the way you do, and are speaking as sincerely as you are in attempting to convey their point of view. You just accused sf of twisting words, and now you are accusing unnamed people of ulterior motives. Why can't we accept that we are all here speaking sincerely according to the way things strike us, and that things strike different people differently?


I'd like to point out again that we've been extolling the virtues in the abstract of listening to each other and trying to understand each other's point of view, but all I see here in this particular case, are attempts to persuade and accusations of insincerity and manipulation. What the heck?

[Primula Baggins]

sf, please—truth and reality are relevant for all of us. Nobody wants to be lied to.

The question here is what we all see as the significant truth of this situation, and there are at least several different versions of that. I think we're all agreed about the parts—just not about how they add up and what the sum of them means.

[sauronsfinger]

I for one will call it a night. Nothing more I can add and Cerin is saying it far better than I can. Good night to all.

[Holbytla]

These are two separate issues. That isn't an opinion. One is during the debate and one is after. There is no other way it can be.

When someone takes one and turns it into something it isn't, then that is twisting and manipulating the facts.

Issue #1
McCain referenced Joe to illustrate the failing of Obama's tax plan. The only pont of issue #1 was the illustration. Joe was meaningless other than a symbol and a gimmick. The tax plan was the talking point.

Issue#2
Joe

After the fact it was discovered who Joe was. Joe was supposedly less than honest and ran with his 15 minutes of fame. That was used as a slam against McCain fairly or unfairly, it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with issue #1. Nothing to do with Obama's tax plan.

Combining the two issues and ignoring the point of Obama's tax plan is manipulating the facts and disregarding the issue McCain has with Obama's tax plan.

They didn't debate to discuss Joe. They debated to discuss issues like tax plans.

[Cerin]

I think we're all agreed about the parts—just not about how they add up and what the sum of them means.

And there's no reason we should expect that we would all agree about that, correct?

These are two separate issues. That isn't an opinion. One is during the debate and one is after. There is no other way it can be.

There are other ways of seeing it, than the way you see it; there are other ways of understanding it than the way you understand it. I wasn't thinking in terms of two separate issues, or during and after the debate. Now that you explain your point of view and understanding I see what you're saying, but I didn't see it before. If someone has a different perspective on something than you do, they aren't taking and turning and twisting and manipulating.

Good grief. How can there possibly be discussion if people assume others must apprehend a situation exactly the same way they do, and if they don't, they're lying?

I feel as though I've fallen down the rabbit hole.

[Primula Baggins]

Please. Can we all stop being so absolute?

Yes, of course, Cerin, I meant that we can't all be expected to agree.

In any case I think we're all (including me) getting awfully heated about something that, in context, probably doesn't deserve this much of our time and energy.

[vison]

I heard on CBC news that Joe the Plumber is going to New York to become an investment banker.

Or a race car driver.

One or the other.

[Frelga]

That seems to be it: it's two separate issues. Because I do think it's a problem for McCain that Joe was not what he was presented to be; it's another thing that speaks to the judgment (or lack of it) being shown by his campaign. In that sense, yes, truth matters. They should have been sure that what Joe said was true before they focused on him so strongly.

But that's a post-debate issue. In the contest of the debate, of the words that were said and the arguments that were made that night, it is not relevant.

I think the issue is both different and wider than that. The issue is McCain's campaign trying to mine narrativum, to borrow a concept from (who else ) Pratchett.

Taxes are the point of major disagreement between the two candidates. Obama has been saying all along, and analysts agree, that his plan would only affect people whose income is above 250K a year. His narrative is that those people are more fortunate than most Americans, and can afford to pay a bit more to help out in this difficult time. On his part, McCain's narrative is that we are talking not about bankers and lawyers, but regular working people struggling to build their American dream. Both candidates struggle to sell their version.

Enter Joe Plumber, a plucky citizen confronting the socialist candidate. I do not for a minute suspect that he is anything but, in fact, a plucky citizen, although nowhere near as successful as he was trying to pretend. So what? He was trying to stump Obama, not run for Plumber of the Year award. He's done nothing wrong (except run a business without a license and fall behind on taxes*), and isn't it a duty of a citizen to challenge our politicians?

Enter John McCain. Who now has a face to put to his narrative, a story of a working guy whose future success is jeopardized by Obama's plans. He mentions Joe in the debates, not just as a theoretical Plumber, but a specific person, by last name and in a specific situation.

"Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes"
...
McCain then looked directly into the television camera and said: "Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees. And I will not stand for a tax increase on small-business income."

ETA: McCain's quote from this NPR story

This is why it is important that Joe Wurzelbacher is not who McCain presented him to be. Not even because McCain didn't do his homework again. What matters is that McCain's narrative still has no face. He has NOT in fact found a regular working guy who will be hurt by Obama's plan. By extension, Obama's narrative holds - that people who work hard and make a way for themselves will NOT be hurt by his tax plan, Joe included.

And of course now he is the poster plumber for the voter disenfranchisement because of his misspelled name on the ballot. Can this campaign get any more surreal?

* Another Pratchetesque aspect to this situation. Pratchett's Watchmen are frequently confronted by an irate citizen complaining about paying taxes yet suffering some indignity or other, only to reveal that the citizen has not paid taxes in years.

[N.E. Brigand]

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.

Um, so whenever someone refers to the 28th U.S. president as "Woodrow Wilson" they're lying? Because I only said that the confusion regarding the "Plumber's" name was irrelevant: Samuel goes by "Joe". Lots of people go by their middle names. I know some such myself. Joe didn't misrepresent himself to Obama on that point. That's all.

[Edited because I miscounted.]

[yovargas]

How about this. McCain tried to make a point about taxes and how they'll affect certain businesses. Nobody is talking about that. Instead, we're talking about Joe the Plumber. Which is more important, the affect of Obama's taxes on businesses or some guy called Joe? Why has the latter gotten such an enormous amount of attention but the former has gotten so little??

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Could point, yov. In the long run, McCain is the one that is hurt by all of the attention on Joe not being who he said he was, because it deflects the focus AWAY from the point McCain was trying to make.