When McCain's mentions that he cares for a hardworking American such as "Joe the Plumber" he raises Joe to the level of a model citizen who the middle class can identify with.
The symbol of a plumber's occupation is that it's a dirty job that civilization relies on. The job is what every household depends on for maintaining clean water and functioning sewage. Thus, it appeals to the middle class as a blue-collar trade that is a necessity to a functioning community. As such, it is a symbol that McCain can use to demonstrate he is looking out for the hard-working American. It may even explain why the McCain ticket, switched focus from speaking about Joe Sixpack to Joe the Plumber in the middle of an economic crisis. While the symbol of “Joe” remained the same, the symbol of a plumber allowed for easier correlations to economic issues than a six-pack of beer could.


McCain is not only praising Joe, he is using Joe to create praise of the ideal hard working citizen who wants to own a business. For example, McCain mentions Joe “worked 10, 12 hours a day” and had worked so hard that he fulfilled the American dream: Creating his own business. To study what Joe the Plumber represents, one needs to only look at what the name itself, “Joe the Plumber,” represents. “Joe” is a very general American name. It crops up the traditional American doll G.I Joe and in terms such as “the average Joe.” By identifying with the concept of Joe, senator McCain and Palin are attempting to demonstrate that they can identify with the common American. Even before Joe the Plumber cropped up, Senator Sarah Palin was referring to “Joe Sixpack.” By using the name of the average Joe, McCain and Palin can insinuate that they are speaking on behalf of the average American. Thus, when former senator Obama argues with logos that his policies on tax relief are aimed to save 98% of Americans, McCain can fight that statistic by bringing in the concept of the “average Joe.” The syllogism McCain uses is that 1)Joe can be anyone, 2) My policies affect Joe. The enthymeme being that 'If my policies affect Joe, they can affect anyone. And if they can affect anyone they can affect you.” McCain uses that syllogism precisely in one of his rebuttals to Obama in the debates: “Who -- why would you want to increase anybody's taxes right now? Why would you want to do that, anyone, anyone in America, when we have such a tough time, when these small business people, like Joe the plumber, are going to create jobs, unless you take that money from him and spread the wealth around." Although this doesn't address Obama's statistic of 98% of people being saved by his tax plans, the word anyone involves 100% of people, including Joe the Plumber.

McCain is positing the ideas of “anyone” and the “average Joe” against Obama's statistical number, 98%. For example, Obama argued the numbers: “Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy." To which McCain responded immediately afterwards with Joe's name: “You know, when Senator Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber -- we need to spread the wealth around. In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around. I want Joe the plumber to spread that wealth around.”

McCain used the tactic of arguing for the “average Joe” instead of 98% outside of the debates as well. In fact, McCain argued so much against Obama's statistics by using Joe the Plumber that Obama re-adjusted his percentage to represent how many plumbers his tax relief would help. He stated, “My tax cuts will affect 99.9% of plumbers.” Although, the number in Obama's final statement seem to be made up, Obama's message was clear that he was representing the majority and not basing his policies on one individual like McCain.

Ultimately, this key issue became a battle of logos verse pathos. Obama's policy of taxes weren't to affect anyone who made less than $250,000 and that meant that, according to Obama, less than 98% of people would be directly taxed. The logic in the syllogism was mathematically solid if his premises are true. However, McCain tried to invoke pathos by creating a character for Americans to sympathize and relate to. When Obama does address individuals that are not included in his 98% statistic they don't generate as much emotion as Joe the Plumber. For example, Obama mentioned a supporter of his who fell outside of his 98% range, Warren Buffett, who “could afford to pay a little more in taxes” McCain swiftly interrupted with “We're talking about Joe the plumber.” Again, Obama's argument that the rich could afford to pay taxes was countered with McCain's appeal for a sympathetic character.

The Joe that McCain spoke of was supposed to be a character and not person present in his speech nor was Joe speaking for himself. Yet, one of the surprising aspects of the debate was that when McCain mentioned Joe the Plumber, he also said it was a citizen that Obama had a chance to speak to. Allowing his metaphor to be based on an individual who had spoke with Obama was the second biggest mistake by McCain , (His biggest being that he let Joe keep talking). Usually when politicians mention a citizen's name that supports their ideology, it's a character that none of the opposing parties had contact with. This prevents opposing politicians from rebutting the citizen. It also gives the impression that this was a person that the politician was looking out for that his opponents had neglected. Yet, in this debate, Obama had the opportunity to speak to Joe and demonstrated that he hadn't neglected him and had even listened to him. What was supposed to be McCain's untouchable apostrophe, turned out to be a man that had been filmed debating with Obama. Thus, Obama was already prepared to break down the ideas that Joe was supposed to represent. Upon McCain's introduction of 'Joe the Plumber', Obama promptly retorted, “the conversation I had with Joe the plumber, what I essentially said to him was, 'Five years ago, when you weren't in a position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then.'” Obama had used McCain's apostrophe to his own advantage, as Joe was not present to answer back.

Days later Joe seized the chance to finally answer Obama back. By taking the spotlight, any metaphor 'Joe the Plumber' was to represent began to materialize. The symbol of the plumber started incorporating other qualities as the man, and not the symbol, became more public in the media. As Joe began doing more interviews and receiving more attention, the symbol of Joe the Plumber, became less about the “plumber” and more just about Joe himself. Joe's actual name, his financial situation, and personal partisanship grabbed the headlines of media outlets such as the New York Times. In effect, the symbol of the plumber began to deconstruct from the metaphor of the “average hardworking American” to a very specific individual. If the metaphor, the base itself, fails then so does all the rhetoric behind such a symbol. The tropes become fewer as the language referring to Joe, especially by the media, wasn't a deviation from everyday speech; They were just facts about the real life person, or what Aristotle refers to as examples. For example, there are few figures in the speech that was applied to Joe's income in the following sentence which appeared in the NYT: “His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes back taxes, too, public records show”. The epideictic rhetoric that praised “the plumber,” has switched to “blame” that is redirected to a specific individual. Furthermore, Joe had also taken a podium and began speaking for himself and revealing more realities and characteristics about himself; which diluted the symbol of the plumber further. The language used around Joe shifted from the artistic to the non-artistic. For example, when speaking about Joe, the New York Times reported, “Thomas Joseph, the business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, based in Toledo, said Thursday that Mr. Wurzelbacher had never held a plumber’s license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities. He also never completed an apprenticeship and does not belong to the plumber’s union, which has endorsed Mr. Obama”. To finalize the deconstruction of the symbol behind the no-longer-average Joe character, Obama declared in a speech after the final debates “my policies affect 99.99% of plumbers.” Obama's latest jab suggested that Joe had been outcasted from the symbol of the plumber by Obama's rhetoric with the aid of the media and Joe's own doing. Furthermore, Obama's rhetoric had incorporated the symbol of “99.99% of the plumbers” in America. When Obama mentioned the 99.99% of plumbers in his speech they were never given names nor identified by any group or association of plumbers; He didn't mention that he was endorsed by the United Association of Plumbers like the New York Times did. By referring only to the idea of “99.9 % of plumbers” in a artistic manner, Obama managed to re-latch onto the “plumber” metaphor.



However, McCain's constant mentioning of "Joe" raises an interesting issue, where it's debatable whether McCain has made the topic of Joe a mockery. McCain's intention was to bring more attention to the potential damaging effects of Obama's policies by having the media constantly referring to Joe's poor situation under Obama's presidency well after the debates. However, the affect this had on swinging any left-wing voter over was minimal. Because, along with the deconstruction of Joe's symbol, McCain's constant referencing of Joe made it seem as though Joe was the only middle-class person that sided with McCain's policies. This sentiment was observable in leftist media such as Keith Olberman on NBC, the skits of Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show that appeared after the final debates. For example, in a sketch on Saturday Night Live, Joe's character was portrayed as McCain's “imaginary friend,” who was, invisible, 3 inches high and kept inside a box; The ridiculous joke wasn't too absurd for the audience to miss. Joe's character might as well have been made up since no one could relate with him. In comparison, Obama's character was merely portrayed of needlessly having to address 'Joe the Plumber' just to maintain any kind of debate. The audience's laughter was an affirmation that they too were tired of hearing about 'Joe the Anaphora.'