A Plumber or a Plant?

During last night's Presidential debates, we all learned about Joe the Plumber. We were told that Joe was the common hard-working man who would be hurt by Obama's tax plan. Throughout the rest of the debate, McCain and Obama both addressed Joe the Plumber more than 20 times as if he was some kind of stand-in for the whole entire nation.

As Samuel J. Wurzelbacher (that's his real name, but I'll call him Joe) enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame today, we were treated to a smorgasbord of his opinions on issues ranging from social security to the war in Iraq. Watch this collage of Joe's greatest hits from the Daily Show, and then tell me if Joe really represents you. He doesn't represent me:



The Daily Show hit on some of today's revelations about Joe: he's not an undecided voter, his real first name is Samuel, he doesn't have a plumber's license, never completed an apprenticeship and does not belong to the plumber’s union, which has endorsed Barack Obama. Also, Joe, who owes back taxes, is unlikely to have an income level that would qualify him for a tax increase under Obama's plan, and if he does make over $250,000... well, then I think he should count his blessings.

Anyway, I don't understand the uproar over Obama's comment regarding "spreading the wealth around." You can watch the entire conversation between Obama and Joe on YouTube. I realize that any talk about redistributing wealth freaks out conservatives, but we've had a progressive tax in this country since the passage of the 16th Amendment, and 81% of economists support progressive taxation. So whether we have Obama's plan or McCain's plan, we're still spreading the wealth around!

One last topic before I attempt to close the door on Joe the Plumber. Was he a plant? I mean is he really an ordinary guy looking for an honest answer, or did the GOP put him up to this? A few blogs are saying he has a relationship to Charles Keating. Of course, guilt by association sucks, but McCain's campaign should have vetted this guy before making him their mascot.

Updated 11/13/2008: Ooops. The entire Keating relationship was a hoax started by a man who is himself a hoax. The MSM also fell for his tricks, so I guess I'm in good company or bad company depending how you look at it.

Joe The Plumber, If You're Out There...

Sarah Palin wants you to give Levi a call. He's going to need a job to support his wife and child...

Tonight's debate wasn't bad. I like this format better. The candidates actually debated! You can read the transcript here.

I thought Obama was cool, clear and collected. I thought McCain grew angrier as the night went on... And as he grew angrier, I grew angrier too -- angry at McCain. Here are a few of the memorable moments.

McCain says his ads went negative because Obama refused to do the many town hall debates that McCain wanted. What kind of whiny excuse is that? Please, McCain, you're responsible for your campaign's actions. You can't blame Obama.

A few minutes later, my anger meter was up again when McCain repeated the right-wing bullshit that ACORN is destroying the fabric of democracy. I blogged about these lies yesterday, so please take a look at that post if you want a little truth about ACORN and wingnuts.

Then came the much discussed issue of Bill Ayers. McCain reminds me of one of those "harsh interrogators" where the truth isn't good enough for him. McCain keeps yelling "tell me more" when Obama is honestly telling him all there is to tell. McCain keeps implying some diabolical plot between the two, while the real story is a dull one about two organizers trying to help their community.

Furthermore, when McCain was asked about the hostile tone of his rallies, his dismissive response was "I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies. " What? I'm disturbed over the angry shouts from his supporters, and I wanted to hear some words of balance from McCain. I guess I was hoping for too much.

Next, McCain brings up Palin's support for special-needs families. That's an important subject. Palin knows something about this subject because of her own child but also because her own state has a unique standing: "The byproducts of oil production can cause serious nervous system disorders, and the North Slope and its environs, home to Alaska Natives and itinerant oil workers, has the highest prevalence of birth defects in the state--11 percent--compared with 6 percent statewide and 3 percent nationwide." Sarah Palin, as governor, has not addressed these concerns.

If the candidates wanted to talk about special-needs, there should have been a follow-up question about the Community Choice Act. This legislation addresses the independence of people with disabilities. Obama has a clear statement of support on his web site. McCain, though, clearly does not support this legislation.

Here is where Obama is the realist. He knows that supporting special-needs means increasing funding. Funding is needed for research and it's needed for support services. You can't say you support people with disabilities while at the same time taking the proverbial hatchet to programs that help them and their families!

Maybe this issue is the best illustration of where Obama and McCain are very different candidates. Obama would give careful and calm consideration to these programs. McCain is an ideologue who speaks in absolute terms of hatchets, vetoes, and drilling. Drill baby, drill.

In contrast, Obama genuinely cares about finding common ground -- notably on the issues of abortion and preventing unwanted pregnancy. McCain, again, aggravates me (and probably a million other women) when he ridicules the life and health considerations of the mother during these difficult decisions.

McCain keeps saying that the American voter is angry. Well, kind of. I've been angry with the Bush administration for quite a while and it's easy to mistake McCain for Bush... But with the current economic crisis, I've been mostly scared. Tonight, however, I am an angry voter... angry at John McCain. That's probably not the results he was hoping for.

Town Hall Debate

Without looking at any poll results, I'm confident tonight's debate was not a game changer.

First, I want to comment on what wasn't discussed tonight: the whole guilt by association bullshit. Neither candidate pursued the attacks face-to-face. That's good, but clearly McCain is leaving that job up to his attack dog Sarah Palin. It must be tricky for McCain to run two very different campaigns at the same time...

On the economy, both candidates seem like socialists. That's no surprise from a Democratic candidate, but from a Republican? And the guy who says government needs to get out of the way? Well, now McCain says he would "order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America..." Is this in addition to the $800 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization bill? McCain the gambler wants to double down?

On energy independence, McCain is really pushing nuclear power now. I don't understand why this subject is getting a free pass. It needs to be debated and the public needs to be informed. Solar and wind power are clean and abundant and would lead to true independence. Calling nuclear power "clean" is misleading, and the necessary uranium is mined from a few friendly and not-so-friendly countries. This whole nuclear power revival is estimated to cost $315 billion.

On national security and terrorism, both candidates are confident they know how to catch Osama Bin Laden. Obama sounds like he's sticking to Bush's current course: "encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants." He emphasized that catching Bin Laden and crushing Al Qaeda would be a national security priority.

McCain's response to that same issue was one of the stranger moments tonight. First he twisted Obama's reply claiming that Obama would attack Pakistan. Does he think we're all deaf or does he think we all lack short-term memory? Or are those McCain's own deficiencies? Anyway, I trust my own hearing-aids and I know Obama did NOT say that. Obama insisted on having a moment to correct the issue where he repeated his strategy once again. I hope McCain got it the second time around.

Let's avoid bizarre moments in the next debate. I offer some advice to the candidates:

• Refrain from patronizing your opponent. Phrases like "that one" sound belittling.
• Stop joking. You proved that you're not funny tonight (McCain, I'm looking at you) with your odd jab at Tom Brokaw. Anyway, your audience has been instructed to not laugh or applaud, and I don't think they wanted to.
• Answer the questions.
• Mention the middle class. Most people think they are middle class.
• Don't admit you were a fraternity brother with Teddy Roosevelt. It makes you sound old.

Finally, explain to me how we can afford all these bailouts, bombs and nuke plants without raising taxes on somebody! This country can't run on fumes any longer.

Can I Call You Joe?

Golly, ain't she folksy? Yet worldly enough to know a homosexual or two. Yet arrogant enough to say she may not answer the questions tonight. Yet stupid enough to criticize the MSM (wow, is she pissed at Couric or what?). And dangerous enough to want to expand the powers of the vice presidency. Yikes!

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?

BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

Wow, Sarah Palin's reply to that question was the most disturbing moment tonight. I started to have one of those panic moments reminiscent of when Bush was reelected. I'm seeing a grim future for our country in one sudden flash.

Joe Biden, however, was impressive tonight. He has command of the issues. His answers were clear and crisp, and he defended Senator Obama when necessary. His best quip was "past is prologue" when Palin complained Democrats were constantly looking backwards. Well, the world is still suffering for the crimes of the Bush administration! Palin, in here folksy twang, brushed off these crimes as "huge blunders." Yeah, let's not hold any high-level officials accountable. Let's not look at what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. Let's not look back because we might realize McCain-Palin would be as disastrous as Bush-Cheney.

Oh, Palin tried to push the myth that they would somehow be different than Bush-Cheney, but she couldn't offer one single example how. Neither did she offer to "get back to ya on that one."

She also pushed the other myth that our enemies hate us for our freedom. Can we get over this childish explanation offered by... BUSH? (I thought they wanted to distance themselves from Bush?) Let me just make it clear. Our enemies hate us for our foreign policies and they hate us for our airstrikes.

I suppose you can say Sarah Palin exceeded expectations tonight if you were expecting her to cry or pass out. She did neither of those. Instead she met my expectations. I fully anticipated the fake folksy cartoonish personality. I expected the awkward nonanswers mechanically sticking to talking points and attack lines. I expected that she could not explain anything in detail. But I never would have expected Palin's indifferent response to a very personal story from Biden (if video doesn't show, click here):



Where was Palin's folksy hometown response to that? Nowhere. You can read the debate transcript here, and a few more of my own comments on Twitter.

Biden won. Doggone it, that's the unvarnished truth.

The Debates

Yeah, I watched the debates tonight. Honestly, I thought it was dull... but let me put some positive spin on that remark. It's good that they stuck to the economy and foreign policy because these are the problems threatening us. But neither candidate surprised me -- it's hard to surprise me when I know their positions already.

What's important is how the undecided voters react. CBS has some early results of an opinion poll of 500 uncommitted voters:

Forty percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-two percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-eight percent saw it as a draw.

I was a little worried that Obama came across as too congenial and the public would see that as a weakness, but maybe I'm wrong...

Speaking of being wrong, Obama was at his strongest when he pointed out when McCain has been dead wrong especially about the war with Iraq:

OBAMA: Look, I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as he explains, and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that, don't go through my subcommittee because they're done as a committee as a whole.

But that's Senate inside baseball. But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...

LEHRER: Senator Obama...

OBAMA: ... of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.

And at another point Obama addressed the lessons of Iraq:

OBAMA: Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place.

Now six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan.

We hadn't caught bin Laden. We hadn't put al Qaeda to rest, and as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. Now Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment.

And I wish I had been wrong for the sake of the country and they had been right, but that's not the case. We've spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.

We took our eye off the ball. And not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month, when they have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home, and we just talked about the fact that our budget is way overstretched and we are borrowing money from overseas to try to finance just some of the basic functions of our government.

So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

McCain bit back with:

MCCAIN: The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That's the decision of the next president of the United States.

Is McCain not understanding this major criticism on his judgment? If he was wrong about going into Iraq, is he going to be wrong about going into Iran, Pakistan, or Russia or whoever the hell he wants to bomb next? I think McCain is doomed to make the same bad judgments again.

One question I wish the moderator had asked was how we define "winning" in Iraq. We can't have a meaningful discussion without this definition.

By the way, check out the fact checking on the debates. I suspected Obama was right about Kissinger's position on negotiations without preconditions.