Joe the Plumber Won't Go Away

Sam Wurzelbacher seems to be outliving his 15 minutes of fame. We all remember his stint as a war reporter for Pajamas Media. As that site wrote:

[Journalists'] complaint seems to be that that being a war correspondent — among the most glamorous and dangerous of media assignments — requires a specialized journalism background. At the risk of bruising the fragile egos of some of these journalists — no, it doesn’t.

And "Joe" proved this point, by bringing his unique perspective to war: "I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell."

What, you thought that was the last we'd hear from this unlicensed plumber? Wrongo. He has resurfaced as a Republican Consultant. (I thought he would run for office, but apparently he says, "I don’t know if the American public deserve me." Fair enough, pardner.)

Anyway, Sam is making money by dispensing advice to Congressional Republicans. Is anybody not giving them advice at this point? Here's what they're paying Sam for:

His advice, essentially, was to take no prisoners in standing up for their beliefs.

“It’s not politically incorrect to say you’re Republican or conservative,” Joe said. “They need to dig their heels in and fight for what needs to be done.”

And no reason to be subtle, he said, as long as folks inform themselves. “I don’t believe there’s two sides to every story. It’s black and white,” Wurzelbacher explained. “There’s right and wrong.”

Um, Sam, "right and wrong" is two sides ... oh, nevermind.

I kinda understand why he´s hanging around for so long....the guy is probably trying to save up to buy a brain :wiseguy:

Funny this thread crops up today... Just this morning I was listening to the local liberal morning show on the way to work and they were slamming old Joe as a fraud, phony and just about anything else you can think of. The idea of him as a common man really seemed to make them bristle.

Bad reporter? Sure. Awkward public speaker? Yep. There's certainly a lot of criticism you can level at the guy, but I don't see where any of it makes him a phony. Being inarticulate when speaking extemporaneously I think would be a common trait among "normal" people. How does not being as slick and polished as a PR firm make him inauthentic? He sounded as inarticulate as can be when he says things like "I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell."- but who doesn't understand the point he was trying to make?

Certainly, blame the "news" outlet that sent a man, without any training and woefully unprepared, out as a war correspondent. But why the hate for Joe? I suspect many of us, given the opportunity to leave a (literally) crappy job in exchange for fame and fortune to try to "tell it like it is" (or at least as you see it) might do the same and I further expect most of us would similarly make a mess of it. It's a lot easier to be succinct when typing on a forum than it is when speaking off the cuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Funny this thread crops up today... Just this morning I was listening to the local liberal morning show on the way to work and they were slamming old Joe as a fraud, phony and just about anything else you can think of. The idea of him as a common man really seemed to make them bristle.

---

How many "common" men end up as Republican Consu wait never mind. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I suspect many of us, given the opportunity to leave a (literally) crappy job in exchange for fame and fortune to try to "tell it like it is" [...] might do the same and I further expect most of us would similarly make a mess of it.

---

Oh, I don't know, I think a lot of people have enough common sense to avoid media attention when they're not ready for it. Those who choose to thrust themselves forward time and time again no matter how much of a mess they make deserve some needling. Does the name "Cindy Sheenan" ring a bell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, I don't know, I think a lot of people have enough common sense to avoid media attention when they're not ready for it. Those who choose to thrust themselves forward time and time again no matter how much of a mess they make deserve some needling. Does the name "Cindy Sheenan" ring a bell?

---

That may be true, but I don't think Joe has reached the level of shrillness or moonbattery that Sheehan did (remember, she even became a 9/11 truther)- yet. Of course, there's still time. :sweatdrop:

The main critiques against him seem to be about his oafishness, not for being a looney. If he were pushing wild-eyed conspiracy theories, that would be one thing. But, he's actually making points (or trying to) and being slammed for being unable to do so eloquently. I think the current tone of the mockery towards him has some risks of backlash. Hit him for what he says, not how he says it. :yes:

Plumbing isn't that bad (at least pay wise). People always need to relieve themselves.

It'd have more dignity than what he's up to these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Plumbing isn't that bad (at least pay wise). People always need to relieve themselves.

---

So that's why he's pissing them off. :idea2:

Everyone deserves a chance at glory - and this is cistern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hit him for what he says, not how he says it. :yes:

---

I think that you need to have a higher degree of communication skills than the average GameSpot user if you are going to express your views openly.

He's probably being paid more than me for a pretty easy job.

Sure, people he'll never meet will make fun, but as a tradeoff it's one I'd happily make.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, I don't know, I think a lot of people have enough common sense to avoid media attention when they're not ready for it. Those who choose to thrust themselves forward time and time again no matter how much of a mess they make deserve some needling. Does the name "Cindy Sheenan" ring a bell?

---

Yes but nowadays it seems most people don't have any kind of common sense, let alone enough to make that kind of decision. And sensible or not most people would love the chance to get those 15 minutes of fame and, more importantly, the temporary boost in income that often accompanies those minutes. For this reason alone I don't begrudge Joe the Plumber or Cindy Sheehan when they open their mouths or make fools of themselves. It's their life, let them do with it what they will.

My problem is with the 'respectable' media outlets that continue to give these people and their antics extensive coverage. I find it difficult to mutter the words 'press' and 'respect' in the same breath when they treat this kind of nonsense as if it's front page news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Plumbing isn't that bad (at least pay wise). People always need to relieve themselves.

It'd have more dignity than what he's up to these days.

---

Plumbing pays damn well, especially since so few people want to be plumbers nowadays. NYC plumbers make a killing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Plumbing pays damn well, especially since so few people want to be plumbers nowadays. NYC plumbers make a killing.

---

Well... it's not bad.

EDIT: Apparently, you can work at McDonald's for about the same amount and not have to worry about crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Well... it's not bad.

---

You clearly have never lived in New York City, where tax avoidance is a major pastime. If that chart is based on any sort of real numbers, I expect it's a case of $40k in reported income, not counting all of the cash jobs they can do.

Seriously, most of the shops in Brooklyn wouldn't take credit cards or check. They just wanted cash. To which I would usually say, "Hey, I don't like paying taxes either, but I do it. So can you!" Strangely, this never got me beat up.

Another thought on Sam — my brother-in-law spent a decade becoming first a journeyman and then a master plumber. It was a big deal. What exactly is Sam W.'s status among plumbers? Is he an apprentice, a journeyman, a nothing, what?

If the guy can make a buck and toss a little variety into the entertainment we call news reporting then more power to him.

It's no worse than actors going into politics, politicians turning into lobbyists, journalists running for office and lawyers turning into journalists.

Really, there's nothing about a journalism degree that should qualify someone to be a journalist any more than completing some college level grammar and legal classes. Take it from someone with a journalism degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If that chart is based on any sort of real numbers, I expect it's a case of $40k in reported income, not counting all of the cash jobs they can do.

---

The executives tend to carry off more than individuals.

Banquo: That was painful. Please, stop what you are doing, head to the nearest public house and quaff 3 pints of Arthur's finest in rapid succession. Perhaps if you anesthetize the offending gray matter cells, they won't force you to pun that way again.

:wall:



Somebody needs to set Joe up on a Quail shoot with our former VEEP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Plumbing pays damn well, especially since so few people want to be plumbers nowadays. NYC plumbers make a killing.

---

It's hard, messy work. But, you can pick your own hours and work when you want, be your own boss and all that. Most of the plumbers here all get off work at 3pm and head of down to the beach for a surf. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

It's hard, messy work. But, you can pick your own hours and work when you want, be your own boss and all that. Most of the plumbers here all get off work at 3pm and head of down to the beach for a surf. :2thumbsup:

---

Same with political consultants, here. ~D

Joe, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds all chatting about the stimulus bill. It is, apparently, comedy gold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sam Wurzelbacher seems to be outliving his 15 minutes of fame. We all remember his stint as a war reporter for Pajamas Media. As that site wrote:

[Journalists'] complaint seems to be that that being a war correspondent — among the most glamorous and dangerous of media assignments — requires a specialized journalism background. At the risk of bruising the fragile egos of some of these journalists — no, it doesn’t.

And "Joe" proved this point, by bringing his unique perspective to war: "I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell."

What, you thought that was the last we'd hear from this unlicensed plumber? Wrongo. He has resurfaced as a Republican Consultant. (I thought he would run for office, but apparently he says, "I don’t know if the American public deserve me." Fair enough, pardner.)

Anyway, Sam is making money by dispensing advice to Congressional Republicans. Is anybody not giving them advice at this point? Here's what they're paying Sam for:

His advice, essentially, was to take no prisoners in standing up for their beliefs.

“It’s not politically incorrect to say you’re Republican or conservative,” Joe said. “They need to dig their heels in and fight for what needs to be done.”

And no reason to be subtle, he said, as long as folks inform themselves. “I don’t believe there’s two sides to every story. It’s black and white,” Wurzelbacher explained. “There’s right and wrong.”

Um, Sam, "right and wrong" is two sides ... oh, nevermind.

---

You're right, he should not be out there. We should leave journalism to professionals like Kieth Olberman, Chris Matthews, Dan Rather, and Jayson Blair.:laugh4:

I hope he never leaves :laugh4:

Palin/Plumber 2012!

As always, I respect the idea of people I disagree with shooting their mouth off.

All I would like to say is, as a former republican and moderate conservative who's fed up with this nonsense, they could find a much better representative of common sense conservative interests than Joe the plumber and Sarah Palin.

Since neither party promised to balance the budget and pay down the national debt, I had to go with the one that would spend it on things that sick/poor people need, which will go directly into the failing economy. I'm disappointed with a lot of the spending, but if you are going to spend it, at least create jobs with it.

You guys are right to compare Joe the Plumber with the lefty wackos. How's about we don't listen to any of the ultra-partisan nutjobs, no matter what their political party? Joe is an embarrassment. He's about as eloquent and deep as a drunk man hitting on a hooker who doesn't realize that she takes cash, and she doesn't need to be wined and dined.

What people don't realise if the various partisan nut jobs around serve as something to put moderates off and give the other side something to point and laugh at, i suppose the problem is that the people who do listen to these nutjobs are often not intelligent enough or to hung up on on thier own bias to realise what a fool the commentator is..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

All I would like to say is, as a former republican and moderate conservative who's fed up with this nonsense, they could find a much better representative of common sense conservative interests than Joe the plumber and Sarah Palin.

---

Since, barring an concantenation of events that I cannot forsee, there is no GOP candidate who has a prayer of beating Obama in 2012, I think Palin/Plumber would be an ideal ticket -- no loss to the party's future.

They won't have a prayer of beating Obama if he succeeds in turning this country around.

But they will have even less of a prayer if they don't do something to help turn this country around.

Consequently, they have the choice to be selfless and help out, or selfish and sabotage his efforts. And so therefore, they are currently more concerned with themselves than the nation, and it sickens me.

If Obama's plans go through, consistently, with no Republican support, and it does some good, the Republicans will have nothing to say when they have to campaign for the senate and house seats. They proposed no good ideas and stood in the way of progress. And if that leads to them losing even more seats to the Democrats, we become a one-party nation.

I think that's unhealthy and dangerous.


Almost anyone would be a better ticket than Palin/Plumber. I'd take any moderate republican who has a history of opposing pork spending and being bipartisan, and has no serious ties to lobbyists or other ethical problems concerning them.

A one party state is dangerous. The Republican party needs to be less of a puppet of Rush Limbaugh and more a party that moderate people can use as an alternative to the Democrats, should they become more bloated and corrupt than the previous Congress and administration.

We need choices, and I hate that the Republicans are forcing me to vote against them. I want to be able to decide between two viable options, not simply vote to make sure Bush's policies are discontinued, and that Palin does not gain power. It's a horrendous situation they are putting myself and the country in, and it's too partisan, too selfish, too dangerous, and a darn sight too immature and stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

If Obama's plans go through, consistently, with no Republican support, and it does some good, the Republicans will have nothing to say when they have to campaign for the senate and house seats.

---

That's a big "if" though. In a political world which has become very partisan (and not just in the United States) there is a calculation to be made.

No-one knows if the stimulus package will work, and still less people know if the alternative (complete government withdrawal in favour of the market) has any merit. Republican strategy could be to ally closely with the stimulus, whereupon Obama still gets all the credit if it works (no-one remembers their part) and they get just as much flak as he if it doesn't.

By choosing to disengage, they're not much worse off if the stimulus works, but possibly reap the benefits of opposition if it all goes tits-up. It's a reasonable stance if the benchmark is self-interest.

My view is that parties (of all shades and most Western democracies) are almost identical in the practice of government and none are interested in principle, merely power. Since each side will do virtually the same in power, they can only differentiate themselves by opposition, regardless of the merit of what is proposed. Most also cling to the natural political cycle in a two party system, which is that no matter how awful their policies may have been, it will be their turn soon enough because the voter forgets - or cares less, since the incumbents are indistinguishable from the opposition. The GOP knows that in a few years, they will still be able to play the "small government, fiscal conservative" card because few voters will remember the Socialist Republic implemented by President Bush.

So it is unsurprising that the Republican party would take such a stance, just as the Democratic party did. The great thing about the US system is that there is a president - the right person can overcome this tendency of "party" and actually implement some principled government.

It's true that the Republican party may have nothing to gain politically if they help Obama and the Democrats pass legislation that could help this nation out.

However, I feel as though if we elected them to serve the country, that should be the overriding concern, not "what we can do to waste time until 2012".

I am just as critical of a minority party of Democrats doing the same self-serving thing. It's the obstructionism and partisanship that galls me, every time it happens, no matter which party does it.


The Republicans have a chance, with every passing day, to draft their own legislation and use their free time for the next 4 years campaigning around this country with their proposed alternative.

They don't even need to show up for votes, because they cannot really stop the Democrats. So why waste time sitting in the Senate with a thumb up their :daisy:?

DO something. Tell me what would be better, and don't say "the policies of the last 8 years". Give me a third alternative, or don't bother being elected ever again. DO your jobs, Republicans. Something besides selfish partisanship would be nice.

I'm not thrilled about the bailout packages either, but if they won't give me something as an option besides general tax cuts, no matter what the situation calls for, I don't see why they should bother holding office. And shouldn't we be balancing the budget, eventually? How do tax cuts accomplish this.

Yes, perhaps we'll see the GOP Senators Draft Stimulus Alternative. :idea2:

...or maybe the Repubicans in the House could come up with something.

Quote:

---

Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families:

Rather than a refundable credit based on payroll taxes, House Republicans propose reducing the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. As a result every taxpaying-family in America will see an immediate increase in their income with an average benefit of $500 in tax relief from the drop in the 10% bracket and $1,200 for the drop in the 15% bracket. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,200 a year in taxes.

Help for America’s Small Businesses:

Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans, yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. House Republicans propose to allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.

No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending:

The stimulus proposal pending in Congress includes record levels of government spending that will substantially increase the current deficit. House Republicans are concerned that this level of spending will result in some proposing near-term tax increases on American families. House Republicans are insisting that any stimulus package include a provision precluding any tax increases now or in the future to pay for this new spending. House Republicans believe that any stimulus spending should be paid for by reducing other government spending, not raising taxes.

Assistance for the Unemployed:

Incredibly, the Federal Government actually imposes income taxes on an individual receiving unemployment benefits. House Republicans propose to make unemployment benefits tax free so that those individuals between jobs can focus on providing for their families. The plan would also extend unemployment benefits from March to December, 2009.

Stabilizing Home Values:

The real-estate market is paralyzed as potential buyers wait on the sidelines waiting for prices to fall even further. This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to encourage responsible buyers to enter the market and stabilize prices, House Republicans propose a home-buyers credit of $7,500 for those buyers who can make a minimum down-payment of 5%.

---

Let's see... tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax credits, tax breaks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

but if they won't give me something as an option besides general tax cuts

---

And for the first one:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Your CNN article

The $713 billion plan was put together by Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, who has been working with a handful of other GOP senators.
The proposal includes $430 billion in tax cuts

---

I almost thought you had me for a second, but even a passing glance at the links you mentioned prove the Republicans have no agenda besides tax reduction.

Right, cuz 413 out of 750 means the entire thing is tax cuts in your mind. Basically what you're saying is their plan needs to be the same as the Democrats plan for you to like it, yes? ~:handball:

You want them to be a viable alternative by being just like the current ruling party- good luck with that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

It's true that the Republican party may have nothing to gain politically if they help Obama and the Democrats pass legislation that could help this nation out.

However, I feel as though if we elected them to serve the country, that should be the overriding concern, not "what we can do to waste time until 2012".

I am just as critical of a minority party of Democrats doing the same self-serving thing. It's the obstructionism and partisanship that galls me, every time it happens, no matter which party does it.


The Republicans have a chance, with every passing day, to draft their own legislation and use their free time for the next 4 years campaigning around this country with their proposed alternative.

They don't even need to show up for votes, because they cannot really stop the Democrats. So why waste time sitting in the Senate with a thumb up their :daisy:?

DO something. Tell me what would be better, and don't say "the policies of the last 8 years". Give me a third alternative, or don't bother being elected ever again. DO your jobs, Republicans. Something besides selfish partisanship would be nice.

I'm not thrilled about the bailout packages either, but if they won't give me something as an option besides general tax cuts, no matter what the situation calls for, I don't see why they should bother holding office. And shouldn't we be balancing the budget, eventually? How do tax cuts accomplish this.

---

What if the Republicans have accidentally stumbled upon the right course of action? That is to say, nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Right, cuz 413 out of 750 means the entire thing is tax cuts in your mind.

---

It is half of the package.

Quote:

---

Basically what you're saying is their plan needs to be the same as the Democrats plan for you to like it, yes? You want them to be a viable alternative by being just like the current ruling party- good luck with that....

---

And no, now you're putting words in my mouth, which is a bad way to debate.
If you strawman me, I won't bother replying, my friend. No hard feelings.

:bow:

Tax cuts are a poor short term stimulus idea. You want spending? Give grants to all the major banks and have them zero out the credit card debt of every American. Spending will explode within 30 days.

And would it be THAT much more costly than the current boondoggle will END UP being (not the < $1T currently claimed)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by answerbag.com

January 2006 Statistics, Last available:

Total credit card debt in the United States has reached about $665 billion on bank credit cards and about $105 billion on store or gas credit cards. According to the Fed's G19 release, the total is roughly $800 billion.

(Sources: www.cardweb.com and the Federal Reserve)

---

Very interesting approach.


I applaud any new idea, or anything besides the two options of just spending and just slashing taxes. Neither balance the budget, and if done improperly, neither will help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

And no, now you're putting words in my mouth, which is a bad way to debate.
If you strawman me, I won't bother replying, my friend. No hard feelings.

:bow:

---

No hard feelings, I just thought you might take the opportunity to clarify your incoherent position. I don't mind if you don't want to. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No hard feelings, I just thought you might take the opportunity to clarify your incoherent position. I don't mind if you don't want to. :bow:

---

LOL

I won't be part of a sniping contest. I really would rather not drain my energy and yours fighting over something silly. I believe I made my point that the Republicans have basically proposed nothing but tax cuts, if you disagree that's your prerogative. It's not big enough a deal to worry about.

Joe likes being in the centre of attention.
What he says is a load of:daisy:
Maybe, Just maybe he'll realise that people reporting war is their choose they take the chance.
Besides if we went to war we would like to no whats happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

LOL

I won't be part of a sniping contest. I really would rather not drain my energy and yours fighting over something silly. I believe I made my point that the Republicans have basically proposed nothing but tax cuts, if you disagree that's your prerogative. It's not big enough a deal to worry about.

---

It's not a matter of opinion- "half" and "all" are wildly different. The current plan is advertised as about 1/3 tax cuts. A GOP plan has been pegged at about half. You set out to lambast Republicans for offering no alternatives without having any facts on hand and when some are presented, you obstinately refuse to let them get in the way of your preconceptions.

I'm not at all interested in debating the merits of GOP plans, since they have no chance of passage anyhow. But it was your willful blindness to what has been proposed that drew my incredulous responses. I expect you'll continue to dodge and deflect... :juggle2:

AtPG What would your perfect bill look like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

AtPG What would your perfect bill look like?

---

"Paid in full"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

AtPG What would your perfect bill look like?

---

Haven't you played any of them war games? What are they called again...

https://i275.photobucket.com/albums/...der38/bill.jpg

But seriously, I don't see why we can't just sit this out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

But seriously, I don't see why we can't just sit this out.

---

My plan exactly. "What if they gave a recession, only nobody came?" I'm un-assing as much credit debt as I can, as fast as I can (like every neighbor and co-worker I know). No, I'm not hoarding food and ammo and moving to the hills (yet); I just don't want to participate in the magical event that seems about to take place, where the Boss changes debt into asset (like that earlier guy who did the water-into-wine trick) by muttering a few - quite a few - words.

I wish him well, the same as I wished Houdini would successfully escape the

https://jimcee.homestead.com/images.jpeg

Amazing Chinese Water Torture Chamber!

Not at all Xiahou, I'm actually going to take a break from this thread. There's just a slight unfriendly tone to the discussion that's totally unnecessary and I really don't want to get under your skin or vice versa.

I'm not interested in quibbling. You win.