snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 16 October 2008, 05:23 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,659
Shifty Eyes Joe the Plumber was a Republican plant

Subject: small world

This is hysterical:

turns out Joe the Plumber (sounds like a porno movie doesn't it?) is a
Republican plant...and, amazingly-- he is hardly "undecided." To top it
off, his father is a big-time Republican donor who apparently is the
son-in-law of Charles Keating and who apparently worked at Lincoln Savings
and Loan when the scandal broke.

small world, indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16 October 2008, 05:35 PM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

It says a similar thing here.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16 October 2008, 05:50 PM
CannonFodder's Avatar
CannonFodder CannonFodder is offline
 
Join Date: 27 February 2004
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 5,288
Default

Damned republicans. Is there any evil they won't stoop to?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16 October 2008, 05:58 PM
Ali Infree's Avatar
Ali Infree Ali Infree is offline
 
Join Date: 02 February 2007
Location: Colliers, WV
Posts: 2,597
Default

And Joe is not registered to vote in Ohio: I think from his published comments that the facts are not important.

Ali "another one bites the dust" Infree
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16 October 2008, 05:59 PM
Nick Theodorakis Nick Theodorakis is offline
 
Join Date: 05 November 2005
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 6,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart View Post
It says a similar thing here.
The irony here is that this sort of minor discrepency would get him purged from the voting rolls if it was checked.

Nick
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17 October 2008, 03:12 AM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Infree View Post
And Joe is not registered to vote in Ohio: I think from his published comments that the facts are not important.

Ali "another one bites the dust" Infree
It now appears that he is registered, under his real first name, Samuel. While he is now a Republican, he says he originally registered with the Natural Law party. Which is quite a leap.
As for whether or not his taxes would go up if Obama were president, the answer is: yes, but they would also go up if McCain were president. Why? Because he hasn't paid any taxes lately and he owes nearly $1200.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 19 October 2008, 05:19 AM
KingDavid8 KingDavid8 is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,126
Default

This was briefly mentioned at FactCheck.org:

Update Oct. 16: ABC News reported the morning after the debate that Wurzelbacher admitted to a reporter that he won't actually make enough from his new plumbing business to pay Obama's higher tax rates. ABC said his admission "would seem to indicate that he would be eligible for an Obama tax cut."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...bate_no_3.html

ETA: Here's an article about it: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...e-plumber.html

David

Last edited by KingDavid8; 19 October 2008 at 05:23 AM. Reason: Adding link to article
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20 October 2008, 12:54 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So Joe the Plumber is a Republican "plant" used to set up Obama? Is that the Party Line now? I'm reading that this event didn't take place at a rally. The guy was standing in his own yard when Obama walked by going door-to-door. Obama went up to greet "Joe" and Joe asked him a question. And Obama answered. And as usual when Obama goes off script his answer generated controversy. And now it's Joe's fault and those evil republicans who pulled the dirty trick on Obama. And Joe's life is fair game, anything to try to discredit him and take the spotlight off what Obama said. At least that seems to be the way it is spinning.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20 October 2008, 01:17 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
So Joe the Plumber is a Republican "plant" used to set up Obama? Is that the Party Line now? I'm reading that this event didn't take place at a rally. The guy was standing in his own yard when Obama walked by going door-to-door. Obama went up to greet "Joe" and Joe asked him a question. And Obama answered. And as usual when Obama goes off script his answer generated controversy. And now it's Joe's fault and those evil republicans who pulled the dirty trick on Obama. And Joe's life is fair game, anything to try to discredit him and take the spotlight off what Obama said. At least that seems to be the way it is spinning.
Why would you think that an anonymous email is "the Party Line"? Do you know how many anonymous emails are going around members of the other party? Are those "the Party Line"?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20 October 2008, 01:19 PM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
So Joe the Plumber is a Republican "plant" used to set up Obama? Is that the Party Line now?
No, it is not the "Party Line". It is a rumour, and as this is a Urban Legends site (and we are in the Urban Legends discussion area) it is being discussed.

ETA: Spanked
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 20 October 2008, 01:38 PM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Throw Tomato

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
So Joe the Plumber is a Republican "plant" used to set up Obama? Is that the Party Line now? I'm reading that this event didn't take place at a rally. The guy was standing in his own yard when Obama walked by going door-to-door. Obama went up to greet "Joe" and Joe asked him a question. And Obama answered. And as usual when Obama goes off script his answer generated controversy. And now it's Joe's fault and those evil republicans who pulled the dirty trick on Obama. And Joe's life is fair game, anything to try to discredit him and take the spotlight off what Obama said. At least that seems to be the way it is spinning.
So is the Union Leader paying by the word or the line these days?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 20 October 2008, 01:54 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
So Joe the Plumber is a Republican "plant" used to set up Obama? Is that the Party Line now? I'm reading that this event didn't take place at a rally. The guy was standing in his own yard when Obama walked by going door-to-door. Obama went up to greet "Joe" and Joe asked him a question. And Obama answered. And as usual when Obama goes off script his answer generated controversy. And now it's Joe's fault and those evil republicans who pulled the dirty trick on Obama. And Joe's life is fair game, anything to try to discredit him and take the spotlight off what Obama said. At least that seems to be the way it is spinning.
Joe's life is fair game because McCain brought him up in a debate. Blaming the scrutiny on Obama means someone wasn't paying attention to the debate.

That's *my* party line.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:20 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Joe's life is fair game because McCain brought him up in a debate. Blaming the scrutiny on Obama means someone wasn't paying attention to the debate.

That's *my* party line.

But the real point of the exchange was the nature of Obama's reply, not the details of Samuel/Joe's circumstances. If the details are not entirely accurate, then it was essentially a hypothetical: "Do you really think it is right to tax me heavier if I am able to boost my income above $200,000?" (I say $200,000 because he is single, and IIRC, $200,000 is the level at which singles get directly taxed higher under the Obama plan). If Obama had simply said, "You know, the additional tax would be only on your profits, and it would only be an additional $1,800 on each $10,000 of profit over the threshold (payroll taxes plus 3% higher income tax). Your country needs that extra revenue to help balance the books, and you will better be in the position to pay that amount when you are earning that much," it would have been a straightforward defense of progressive taxation to raise revenue. However, Obama went much further than that when he insisted that the country is better if he takes wealth from those that have it (particularly from a guy who under the hypothetical had earned it) and gives it away to those that did not do anything for it. While you may or may not agree with the philosophy of redistribution, a lot of people in this country do not agree with it for various reasons. The fact that Obama stated the principle (which a lot of his opponents believed all along was his philosophy, especially since the comment about capital gains taxes where he indicated that he thought it more important to create 'fairness' than to raise revenue with taxes) so clearly is the real focus of the whole exchange. Slamming 'Joe the Plumber' is just the typical politics of distraction and division.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:30 PM
keokuk's Avatar
keokuk keokuk is offline
 
Join Date: 25 July 2006
Location: Montclair, NJ
Posts: 4,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
But the real point of the exchange was the nature of Obama's reply, not the details of Samuel/Joe's circumstances. If the details are not entirely accurate, then it was essentially a hypothetical: "Do you really think it is right to tax me heavier if I am able to boost my income above $200,000?" (I say $200,000 because he is single, and IIRC, $200,000 is the level at which singles get directly taxed higher under the Obama plan). If Obama had simply said, "You know, the additional tax would be only on your profits, and it would only be an additional $1,800 on each $10,000 of profit over the threshold (payroll taxes plus 3% higher income tax). Your country needs that extra revenue to help balance the books, and you will better be in the position to pay that amount when you are earning that much," it would have been a straightforward defense of progressive taxation to raise revenue. However, Obama went much further than that when he insisted that the country is better if he takes wealth from those that have it (particularly from a guy who under the hypothetical had earned it) and gives it away to those that did not do anything for it. While you may or may not agree with the philosophy of redistribution, a lot of people in this country do not agree with it for various reasons. The fact that Obama stated the principle (which a lot of his opponents believed all along was his philosophy, especially since the comment about capital gains taxes where he indicated that he thought it more important to create 'fairness' than to raise revenue with taxes) so clearly is the real focus of the whole exchange. Slamming 'Joe the Plumber' is just the typical politics of distraction and division.
I agree and disagree. There are two sides to the discussion: One was Obama's reply on wanting to "spread the wealth around." If that was the issue that McCain wanted to debate, then it wouldn't have been necessary to constantly inject the issue of the particular person to whom Obama was speaking at the time. He could have made it about the statement. Instead, he repeatedly injected the issue of Joe The Plumber and how much worse his life could be under Obama's tax plan. That's an entirely separate issue.

Incidentally, once Joe the Plumber began doing press conferences and holding himself out as someone who could be harmed under Obama's plan, then I think it's perfectly valid to go out there and investigate his taxes and find out his status. If he cloistered himself inside his home after the debate, it would be a different story, but he injected himself into the news cycle by interacting with reporters. I think it's perfectly valid to look into it and find that, in reality, he would benefit more under Obama's plan than McCain's.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:33 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack View Post
But the real point of the exchange was the nature of Obama's reply, not the details of Samuel/Joe's circumstances. If the details are not entirely accurate, then it was essentially a hypothetical: "Do you really think it is right to tax me heavier if I am able to boost my income above $200,000?" (I say $200,000 because he is single, and IIRC, $200,000 is the level at which singles get directly taxed higher under the Obama plan). If Obama had simply said, "You know, the additional tax would be only on your profits, and it would only be an additional $1,800 on each $10,000 of profit over the threshold (payroll taxes plus 3% higher income tax). Your country needs that extra revenue to help balance the books, and you will better be in the position to pay that amount when you are earning that much," it would have been a straightforward defense of progressive taxation to raise revenue.
I certainly don't want to speak for Obama, but I would imagine he was probably too busy to give a lengthy dissertation about how taxes work, specifically as they regard privately-owned businesses.

The answer Obama gave was an answer that applied to what "Joe the Plumber" was supposed to represent.

Quote:
Slamming 'Joe the Plumber' is just the typical politics of distraction and division.
"Joe the Plumber" was brought up in a debate by McCain as someone who is representative of a particular class of people (small business owners whose companies earn >$250,000 profit). Except that the actual guy is not representative of that class of people. Showing why he is not (he's not a plumber, he doesn't pay taxes, he isn't buying the company, and the company, even if he did buy it, would not earn >$250,000 profit) demonstrates McCain's inability to 1.) clearly articulate *his* plan, 2.) understand Obama's plan, and, most importantly to me, 3.) exercising good decision making where his campaign is concerned.

This is McCain's fault.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 20 October 2008, 02:44 PM
Christie Christie is offline
 
Join Date: 28 November 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 30,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
This is McCain's fault.
And McCain has no one to blame but himself that he squandered an opportunity to effectively speak to the ongoing economic crisis and instead focused on a faux plumber.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 20 October 2008, 04:15 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Why would you think that an anonymous email is "the Party Line"? Do you know how many anonymous emails are going around members of the other party? Are those "the Party Line"?
This question was quickly supported when it was posted and at least two of the responses cited Ben Smith's op-ed. That makes it more than "an anonymous email". Op-ed, on its own, is not evidence. However after the initial flurry to take it at face value there has been no activity to post the information that came out later. Discussion on the matter gets deflected to Joe's character and family, to McCain's debating skills and into 'the other guys do it too' arguments rather than the content of Obama's response to the question. THAT is why I used the term Party Line.
I would rather hear someone answer why Obama's response was OK than hear the pot-shots at the person who asked the question. But what has been going on makes it appear that his answer wasn't a faux pas at all and his supporters want to distance themselves from it until it is too late to question it.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 20 October 2008, 04:29 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
I would rather hear someone answer why Obama's response was OK
Obama's response was OK because wealth redistribution, like it or not, happens in the US. Just because it's happened on the DL during this administration doesn't mean it's not going on.

Quote:
than hear the pot-shots at the person who asked the question.
What pot shots have been taken?

Quote:
But what has been going on makes it appear that his answer wasn't a faux pas at all and his supporters want to distance themselves from it until it is too late to question it.
I have no desire to distance myself from it.

Why are you distancing yourself from McCain's actual faux pas of using Joe the Plumber to improperly illustrate Obama's position?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 20 October 2008, 04:46 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
This question was quickly supported when it was posted and at least two of the responses cited Ben Smith's op-ed. That makes it more than "an anonymous email". Op-ed, on its own, is not evidence. However after the initial flurry to take it at face value there has been no activity to post the information that came out later. Discussion on the matter gets deflected to Joe's character and family, to McCain's debating skills and into 'the other guys do it too' arguments rather than the content of Obama's response to the question. THAT is why I used the term Party Line.
I would rather hear someone answer why Obama's response was OK than hear the pot-shots at the person who asked the question. But what has been going on makes it appear that his answer wasn't a faux pas at all and his supporters want to distance themselves from it until it is too late to question it.
Can you show me the statements supporting that he is a Republican "plant", because all I saw was a link to a blog that says he is a registered voter. For those of us who've been paying attention, this is old news and I already knew all about Joe and the attempts to find out if he is registered to vote (yes) and if, in fact, he would have to pay more taxes if he bought his business (no).

I was fine with Obama's statement and have no desire to distance myself from it. That really has nothing to do with you stating that the party line is that Joe is a Republican "plant", which is what this thread was originally about.

Last edited by wanderwoman; 20 October 2008 at 04:50 PM. Reason: to add a thought
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 20 October 2008, 05:12 PM
keokuk's Avatar
keokuk keokuk is offline
 
Join Date: 25 July 2006
Location: Montclair, NJ
Posts: 4,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
But what has been going on makes it appear that his answer wasn't a faux pas at all and his supporters want to distance themselves from it until it is too late to question it.
I don't think it's pot-shots at the person asking the question. If McCain really wanted to discuss Obama's "spread the wealth" line, then he could have prefaced it by just saying that he was talking to a voter. Instead, he made a big scene by mentioning "Joe the Plumber" nearly two dozen times during the debate.

It seems that if the real problem is with what Obama said to Joe the Plumber, then the focus of McCain's question to Obama should have been about Obama's statement rather than placing an emphasis on the voter to whom he was talking.

Incidentally, bottom line: McCain's plan also redistributes the wealth. He's not favoring a flat tax, so the rich will still pay disproportionately more taxes. He also favors having the government buy out mortgages to help people avoid foreclosure. When Chris Wallace asked about why that's not a socialist policy on Fox News Sunday yesterday, McCain said that it's okay because it's a response to an emergency situation. (Note that he's not saying it's not a socialist policy, but basically argued that provisional socialist policies are acceptable.) So if we really want to have a debate about whether we should "spread the wealth" around, then maybe we should truly examine if either candidate favors a policy whereby the wealth stays where it is. It's simply untrue to pretend that only one candidate supports spreading the wealth around.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.