All Talked Out - Debates Over - Who Won?

[yovargas]

Thank you, Maria. That's the kind of discussion that McCain's comments should have prompted.

[Ellienor]

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 know the reason why it bugs ME. McCain picked Sarah Palin touting many of her qualities. Some of them were true (social conservative) but some of them were not (earmark-opposer). I am bugged when I am being marketed something and there is false advertising.

Joe the Plumber is false advertising. Started on his end (he was not honest) but McCain thinks it irrelevant to the discourse. Well, I don't want to see a guy standing outside a modest house in a modest neighborhood and think that HE is the poster child for having his American Dream ruined by tax increases.

To me, it hearkens back to the Iraq War. Our Fearless Leaders knew the war was the right thing to do so it was OK to sell it under false pretenses.

That's how I feel about it. The President and the leaders have to be honest, darn it. Joe the Plumber matters.

[Holbytla]

Obama was the one that talked to Joe. Neither Obama nor McCain knew who Joe was when the debate was held. McCain raised the issue of Joe to make a point, not extoll the virtues of Joe.
Because Joe turned out to be false advertising, that isn't a reflection on either campaign.
Had Joe been a fictional character, the point would still stand.

Having said that, the point McCain was trying to make was deceptive and misleading. The number of small businesses that earn over $250k is minute. Less than 10% from what I have read.

IMO that is where the focus should have been. The issue, not the representation of that notion.

[Ellienor]

OK, raising it in the debate=moderately OK (but he should have been checked into)

However, McCain is still flogging Joe on the campaign trail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01902.html

Kind of like, "Thanks, but No Thanks, to the Bridge from Nowhere" that Palin said for weeks, even after she was discredited on this statement.

[Holbytla]

I agree that he should just let it go at this point and use a different device to attack Obama's tax plan. It still seems to resonate with some people though I guess. As does Palin.

[sauronsfinger]

Holby - the one weakness I see in that approach is the repeated and continual mention of Joe The Plumber by McCain. What was it - 18, 20, 21 times he mentioned the guy? He even went as far to publicly in front of the nation tell Joe that He would help him get that business. McCain told Joe that on nationwide TV.

Unless Cindy is going to give the fellow a million bucks from beer money then McCain is not going to help Joe buy anything.

McCain badly needed a real live human being to personify what he felt were the weaknesses of the Obama tax plan. And he found Joe the Plumber...... who turned out to be ..... okay - we have been through that. But its hard to sink a strong foundation into shifting sand. And that is what that guy from Ohio quickly became. Joe was not just a representation... he was the living breathing proof of the failure of the Obama tax plan. When that living breathing proof was himself revealed as a fraud -- then the foundation sinks into those shifting sands.

[Cerin]

It still seems to resonate with some people though I guess.

Yes. It's the very fact of its effectiveness (that it resonates) that made it important to expose that Joe wasn't a real example of someone who would be taxed at a higher rate under Obama. And by continuing to use 'Joe' in speeches, McCain is deliberately fostering the false impression that Joe -- the real Joe, not the imaginery one -- is the kind of person who will have to pay more under Obama.

[sauronsfinger]

These are portions taken directly from the transcript of the third debate.

MCCAIN: No. I would like to mention that a couple days ago Senator Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who's a plumber, his name is Joe Wurzelbacher.

- actually - his name is Samuel and he is not a plumber by the standards of the state of Ohio and the professional association which plumbers belong to

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.

- actually Joe is not in any position to buy almost anything other than weekly necessities becuase he only makes 40K per year. He has never attempted to buy the business.

You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.

- actually, if Obama's tax plan were enacted into law Joe would not move into any higher tax bracket
- actually Obama has a tax credit if Joe or anyone else in a small business wants to create job and employ people

Now Senator Obama talks about the very, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and be able -- and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees.

- actually, unless McCain makes a very large personal gift to Joe, he has no actual plan which will help Joe buy that business on his present income

And I will not have -- I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income. Fifty percent of small business income taxes are paid by small businesses. That's 16 million jobs in America. And what you want to do to Joe the plumber and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.

- actually the vast majority of small business owners do not make anytyhing near the 250K per year that the Obama tax plan impacts.

SCHIEFFER: Is that what you want to do?

MCCAIN: That's what Joe believes.

- actually the beliefs of Joe, or you or me have little to do with debating tax policy which is a matter of facts and reality not beliefs.

and that was just the opening salvo McCain delivered on behalf of Joe.
If anyone wants more, I can provide it.

The fact is simple. John McCain used this guy named Joe to provide living breathing proof of the weaknesses of the Obama tax plan. And that living breathing proof itslef proved to be a fraud.

[Ellienor]

If you look at johnmccain.com, Joe is featured PROMINENTLY, I mean, right there, front and center, on the web page. I'd link to it but I would imagine that the front page changes all the time, so you'd need a screenshot.

I suppose this could be seen as part of the problem with the Lasto forum that is being discussed in the other thread. My response is that I would like to see Faramond or Soli or centrist Anthy come tell me why McCain's trouble with representing facts accurately on this issue won't be a preview of how he treats facts in his presidency.

[Holbytla]

If you look at johnmccain.com, Joe is featured PROMINENTLY, I mean, right there, front and center, on the web page. I'd link to it but I would imagine that the front page changes all the time, so you'd need a screenshot.

I suppose this could be seen as part of the problem with the Lasto forum that is being discussed in the other thread. My response is that I would like to see Faramond or Soli or centrist Anthy come tell me why McCain's trouble with representing facts accurately on this issue won't be a preview of how he treats facts in his presidency.

It took days to find out who Joe was and it was the media that uncovered the information. None of the candidates tell the absolute truth or the whole truth. Pick any of the statements any of the candidates has made about the other and you will find a kernal of truth. Not the absolute truth.

"Sen. McCain voted against XYZ bill".

Sure he did, but he voted against it because of the attachments.

At this point, McCain should just drop Joe, but when this whole thing started none of this was known. It wasn't about Joe at that point.

Both Obama and McCain spoke of the bracelets they received from voters. Does anyone know who those bracelets were from? I don't. They could both be shams for all I know, but that isn't the point. They were using the bracelets to illustrate points. Just like Joe was an illustration. Sure it has changed since then, but during the debate it was about a tax plan.

[Ellienor]

Well, I guess I do see the candidates and their treatment of truth to be quite different. And in acknowledging global warming, in acknowledging that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq, acknowledging that somebody's going to have to have their taxes raised (back to Clinton years, hardly a suffocating burden, at least in my memory). I am confident I will get *more* of the objective reality from an Obama presidency.

You know, Holby, I want to make one point. You rail a lot about the corruption of politicians. It does happen. But who else is going to do it? Corporations? They create company towns and abscond with the wealth themselves. They answer only to their owners and/or shareholders. I would prefer the government, however imperfect, because we're the shareholders. In my opinion, it's the only thing we have, because corporations and businesses and other such structures do not have our welbeing at heart, except where it coincides with their business interests. Henry Ford was a well known businessman who wanted to help his workers, and we all know how that went. He was sued by his own shareholders and lost!

Rail against big government all you want, but IMHO it is here to stay. Europe and the rest of the world are going to demand serious government oversight of our financial system so we can't again do to the world what we just did to it. Al Qaeda is not going away--we're going to need more, not less, homeland security. Healthcare costs and our broken healthcare system have got to be fixed--even big business is starting to say that. Many M.D.'s long ago gave up their opposition to "socialized medicine" because they recognize it is not serving patients.

Big government is here to stay. Someone's got to pay for it all. Make it work. I have seen what a Republican administration (which does not like government) does to the government, when it is in charge. By appointing unqualified people to head agencies (I don't want to re-run what's already been discussed here) you make government LESS effective and strengthen the notion that government can't do anything right and it's an albatross. As people see that, they get more disgusted with government and want less of it. See the vicious circle?

What's the solution, Holby? Hate government and make it less effective? Or believe in it and vote in the right leaders?

[sauronsfinger]

Holby - obviously the McCain campiagn made a strategic decision to use this Joe person and have him be the embodiment of their opposition to the Obama tax policy. Otherwise, they certainly would not have mentioned him so often during the debate.

My question for you is this: given that, did not McCain have some sort of duty or obligation to exercise due dilligence and send somebody to Ohio to at least talk to this person before they thrust him front and center in the middle of the debate watched by 50 million people?

[Holbytla]

Well, I guess I do see the candidates and their treatment of truth to be quite different. And in acknowledging global warming, in acknowledging that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq, acknowledging that somebody's going to have to have their taxes raised (back to Clinton years, hardly a suffocating burden, at least in my memory). I am confident I will get *more* of the objective reality from an Obama presidency.

You know, Holby, I want to make one point. You rail a lot about the corruption of politicians. It does happen. But who else is going to do it? Corporations? They create company towns and abscond with the wealth themselves. They answer only to their owners and/or shareholders. I would prefer the government, however imperfect, because we're the shareholders. In my opinion, it's the only thing we have, because corporations and businesses and other such structures do not have our welbeing at heart, except where it coincides with their business interests. Henry Ford was a well known businessman who wanted to help his workers, and we all know how that went. He was sued by his own shareholders and lost!

Rail against big government all you want, but IMHO it is here to stay. Europe and the rest of the world are going to demand serious government oversight of our financial system so we can't again do to the world what we just did to it. Al Qaeda is not going away--we're going to need more, not less, homeland security. Healthcare costs and our broken healthcare system have got to be fixed--even big business is starting to say that. Many M.D.'s long ago gave up their opposition to "socialized medicine" because they recognize it is not serving patients.

Big government is here to stay. Someone's got to pay for it all. Make it work. I have seen what a Republican administration (which does not like government) does to the government, when it is in charge. By appointing unqualified people to head agencies (I don't want to re-run what's already been discussed here) you make government LESS effective and strengthen the notion that government can't do anything right and it's an albatross. As people see that, they get more disgusted with government and want less of it. See the vicious circle?

What's the solution, Holby? Hate government and make it less effective? Or believe in it and vote in the right leaders?

How about make them accountable and keep them accountable?
How about stop spending money foolishly, like in $400 hammers?
How about term limits to alleviate the good ol' boy network?
How about a government that doesn't have to spend $700 billion dollars on bailouts because they have been asleep at the switch or looking the other way?

You want me to have faith in govenment? This government?

Lesseee since I have been around we have had assasinations, Viet Nam, Watergate, mega inflation, hostages in Iran, Iran-Contra, dead marines in Beirut, the Keating Five, Enron....

you want me to believe in government? With all of its insiduous problems that are never ever addressed?

Until the system changes, nothing is ever going to change. Regardless the size of government. Did you read the bailout bill that everyone signed off on? Did you see the load of garbage that was attached to it?

Seriously when are they ever going to wake up?

The answer isn't to do away with government, but to fix the problems that are there and have been there forever. Accountability. Term limits. No deficit spending and a mandated balanced budget. Overly bloated social programs that fail to help the intended recipients.

The list is long.

[sauronsfinger]

How about make them accountable and keep them accountable?
How about stop spending money foolishly, like in $400 hammers?
How about term limits to alleviate the good ol' boy network?

Meat Loaf said two out of three aint bad. And so it is not. We have already remedied two of these.

We have regular elections for seats in Congress. The House is elected - all 435 seats - every two years with no exceptions. The Senators serve for six year terms staggered at 1/3 intervals every two years when they are up for re-election. The American people can exercise term limits at any of these election times. They can also hold their representative and Senators accountable through those same elections.

$400 hammers are beyond my control.

[Holbytla]

The American people can exercise term limits at any of these election times. They can also hold their representative and Senators accountable through those same elections.

Yeah except that the incumbent is likely to have millions to spend on the campaign and the fledgling newcomer will be spent into the ground.

[Ellienor]

The answer isn't to do away with government, but to fix the problems that are there and have been there forever. Accountability. Term limits. No deficit spending and a mandated balanced budget. Overly bloated social programs that fail to help the intended recipients.

1. Accountability. There's where an impartial Justice Department and alert voters come into play. Here's looking at you, kid.

2. Term limits. Well, isn't that unfair to dedicated public servants who are serving their constituents well? I don't know about this one, I think changing the team too often and too randomly blunts their ability to do things...but I will think about this more.

3. No deficit spending and a mandated balanced budget. Um, if that were the case, the Depression would have never ended and we wouldn't have won WWII. What if people never went into debt? Nobody would buy houses. Some debt is worthwhile, Holby.

4. Overly bloated social programs=agreed. But health care, jobs programs, education, these are all things that help people help themselves. What overly bloated social programs are you talking about, Holby? I live in Colorado and I don't see a too much evidence of such things. It seems that almost all of our citizens here are productive workers. Nobody's getting overly bloated on government largesse.

[Holbytla]

Welfare and SS ripoffs for a start. Millions in education that leaves us wanting in comparison to the rest of the world.

If a Senator can't accomplish something meaningful in 12 or 18 years, how long should it take? And do you not suppose there are equally talented people out there that get shut out because of lifelong incumbants?

Massachusetts has a mandated balanced budget and we haven't sunk into the ocean yet. And I would daresay we have as many if not more services than most of the country.

Accountability? Well maybe the Justice Dept. or the voters need to look at this;

Senators attached a provision repealing a 39-cent excise tax on wooden arrows designed for children to an historic $700 billion financial-markets rescue that passed tonight by a vote of 74-25. The provision, originally proposed by Oregon senators Ron Wyden [D] and Gordon Smith [R], will save manufacturers such as Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon, about $200,000 a year.

It's one of dozens of tax breaks benefiting Hollywood producers, stock-car racetrack owners and Virgin Islands rum-makers included in the broader legislation in an effort to win support from House Republicans, whose defection contributed to a rejection of an earlier version of the legislation two days ago on a 228-205 vote.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... w-bailout/

Here is looking at you Mrs Alert Voter.

[sauronsfinger]

What programs that currently benefit you should we begin to cut back sharply?

[Holbytla]

All of them.

[sauronsfinger]

Could you please be specific?
Which program?
How much should we cut back?
Why that level?