To what extent do you think that the example of Joe The Plumber was effectively employed by John McCain? DO you think that it strengthened his case on his economic campaign?
McCain is using anything to draw attention and appeal to everyone. Since Joe has become such a popular figure, McCain has constantly supported him for his being the symbol of the American Dream. It's hard to determine whether Joe is effective for his campaign because McCain's promises don't seem plausible. He relies way too much on advertising - and 100% of his ads are negative (confirmed by those in NY1). My family doesn't make $250,000 a year, and that's probably why I support Obama's economic plan. It really doesn't make sense if the middle/lower class families have to pay higher tax rates than the higher class families. Perhaps McCain supports the whole idea of success rewarding people and social Darwinism, but it's not possible for EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in a community to be wealthy and win...it just doesn't work that way. If it did, then competition would cease to exist. I guess McCain focuses mainly on those who seek to pursue the American Dream (material wealth = happiness) while Obama focuses more on stability and burden-relief.
Wurzelbacher? WORZELBACHER? Different names? Same person? :::
But I don't think both of them have a good solution on our economy. Obama won't get enough money just by raising 2% population people's taxes. Neither raising tax nor reducing tax will help us out of this economic crisis. Actually this crisis must be more easily to be solve than the other crisis in the past, since doller is the international currency. Maybe it is more important to create more jobs right now. The next scientific revolution is going to be about energy. There must be some old jobs disappearing but also more new jobs appear. Maybe we should view this crisis as a outset of new period. This why I found that Obama's view about alternative energy is very profund.
I think Joe the plumber is completely exploited and although it was a good idea to use the "common man,"it was primarily used to talk negatively about Obama not to address to the American people or the American dream. Mccain had spoken about how obama spoke to Joe the plumber then later addressed SOME struggles that Joe the plumber might have. It was a passive aggressive attack and if anything those who are the middle class, the "Joe"s of our society, should be anything but impressed with the comment and actually i am a little insulted that people like my mother are being used as a campaign tactic attack.
Joe the plumber has become a quote on quote 'celebrity'. His widespread fame has been evident that McCain's tactic is(was) working. However the broadly acclaimed slogan "Joe is everybody" is illegitimate. Because if Joe did represent "everybody" then technically, “everybody” or your ‘average Joe’ would represent the American Dream as opposed to Jay Gatsby’s ‘green light’. It seems to me, that Joe perpetrates not ‘everybody’ but the upper class or anyone who makes the 250k range or more, even if it means doing so potentially. In another word, does every American have the ability and stability to toy with a ‘dream’- will people take the risk? If so, what happens if you actually never achieve it? Then does McCain’s tax policy suite you? And so, he appeals to the upper class and to those who might potentially obtain the 250k and more income. Perhaps, this tactic was the only alternative to make his point ‘clear’ without fully addressing or offending the ‘real’ blue collars by maintaining stability to high incomers while instilling hope to others. Of course, Republicans have always had their ‘targets’ and this time it’s the “hard-working, middle class American who will be hurt by Barack Obama’s tax hikes.” However McCain’s point remains valid; tax small business=hurt expansion= ultimately, threatens employment rates. So it all comes together. Personally, it does not appeal to me but then again, neither does Obama’s policy. But I can see why it does for other citizens. Therefore I believe it does strengthen McCain’s argument, but it does so from the ‘bigger picture’; while Obama’s tax policy is more appealing for the present (especially looking at it now), not necessarily the future. Nick Sergi addresses to Kansascity News: “He (Obama) wants to change things too quickly, and we're at a point in the economy where things are moving very fast. We need a midpoint, a way to slow down the change.” Do you think rapid change is going to be accompanied without consequences? Wait, of course there will be consequences, but what I really mean is, do you think they will be beneficial or are they going to be harmful?
4 comments:
McCain is using anything to draw attention and appeal to everyone. Since Joe has become such a popular figure, McCain has constantly supported him for his being the symbol of the American Dream.
It's hard to determine whether Joe is effective for his campaign because McCain's promises don't seem plausible. He relies way too much on advertising - and 100% of his ads are negative (confirmed by those in NY1).
My family doesn't make $250,000 a year, and that's probably why I support Obama's economic plan. It really doesn't make sense if the middle/lower class families have to pay higher tax rates than the higher class families. Perhaps McCain supports the whole idea of success rewarding people and social Darwinism, but it's not possible for EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in a community to be wealthy and win...it just doesn't work that way. If it did, then competition would cease to exist. I guess McCain focuses mainly on those who seek to pursue the American Dream (material wealth = happiness) while Obama focuses more on stability and burden-relief.
Wurzelbacher? WORZELBACHER? Different names? Same person? :::
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/off-the-bus-reporter/joe-the-plumber-not-votin_b_135201.html
But I don't think both of them have a good solution on our economy. Obama won't get enough money just by raising 2% population people's taxes. Neither raising tax nor reducing tax will help us out of this economic crisis. Actually this crisis must be more easily to be solve than the other crisis in the past, since doller is the international currency.
Maybe it is more important to create more jobs right now. The next scientific revolution is going to be about energy. There must be some old jobs disappearing but also more new jobs appear. Maybe we should view this crisis as a outset of new period. This why I found that Obama's view about alternative energy is very profund.
I think Joe the plumber is completely exploited and although it was a good idea to use the "common man,"it was primarily used to talk negatively about Obama not to address to the American people or the American dream. Mccain had spoken about how obama spoke to Joe the plumber then later addressed SOME struggles that Joe the plumber might have. It was a passive aggressive attack and if anything those who are the middle class, the "Joe"s of our society, should be anything but impressed with the comment and actually i am a little insulted that people like my mother are being used as a campaign tactic attack.
Joe the plumber has become a quote on quote 'celebrity'. His widespread fame has been evident that McCain's tactic is(was) working. However the broadly acclaimed slogan "Joe is everybody" is illegitimate. Because if Joe did represent "everybody" then technically, “everybody” or your ‘average Joe’ would represent the American Dream as opposed to Jay Gatsby’s ‘green light’. It seems to me, that Joe perpetrates not ‘everybody’ but the upper class or anyone who makes the 250k range or more, even if it means doing so potentially. In another word, does every American have the ability and stability to toy with a ‘dream’- will people take the risk? If so, what happens if you actually never achieve it? Then does McCain’s tax policy suite you? And so, he appeals to the upper class and to those who might potentially obtain the 250k and more income. Perhaps, this tactic was the only alternative to make his point ‘clear’ without fully addressing or offending the ‘real’ blue collars by maintaining stability to high incomers while instilling hope to others. Of course, Republicans have always had their ‘targets’ and this time it’s the “hard-working, middle class American who will be hurt by Barack Obama’s tax hikes.” However McCain’s point remains valid; tax small business=hurt expansion= ultimately, threatens employment rates. So it all comes together. Personally, it does not appeal to me but then again, neither does Obama’s policy. But I can see why it does for other citizens. Therefore I believe it does strengthen McCain’s argument, but it does so from the ‘bigger picture’; while Obama’s tax policy is more appealing for the present (especially looking at it now), not necessarily the future. Nick Sergi addresses to Kansascity News: “He (Obama) wants to change things too quickly, and we're at a point in the economy where things are moving very fast. We need a midpoint, a way to slow down the change.” Do you think rapid change is going to be accompanied without consequences? Wait, of course there will be consequences, but what I really mean is, do you think they will be beneficial or are they going to be harmful?
Post a Comment