Pennsylvania

Adam Jentleson, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has been tweeting promiscuously (or in woke, "tweeting as a sex worker") about the US Senate race in which John Fetterman beat Mehmet Oz.  He was primarily exorcised by the mainstream media which brought the message that the Fetterman's difficulties in the debate with his opponent debate seriously jeopardized the likelihood the Democrat would prevail. 

But Jentleson made a couple of good peripheral points in his tweet thread. He noted

The Fetterman camp said reactions to the debate were likely to be shaped by the central fact of the campaign: people like John and do not like Oz. They’d be sympathetic to John’s struggles because they are decent human beings and not schoolyard bullies or overconfident GOP flaks.

It's what in recent years has been characterized roughly as "have a beer with test," which is similar- not identical- to the traditional factor of charisma. When Fetterman ran, unsuccessfully, for the Democratic nomination for the same Senate seat (then and until January still held by Pat Toomey) six years ago, I believed that he'd be the strongest nominee because he was an individual voters would be drawn to.

If nothing else, he was and still is down-to-earth, plain-spoken, frequently sporting shorts and a hoodie because, presumably, he is comfortable doing so. Moreover, he seemed to be, well, not an intellectual's intellectual or stuffed shirt, a trait to which voters in Pennsylvania (especially Pennsylvania) would relate to. It's why, along with the Hobbes decision, I believed from the start that Fetterman would blow Oz away, probably by around 20 points.

That turned out to be wildly optimistic. However, Jentleson's expectation that voters would "be sympathetic to John's struggles because they are decent human beings...." likely would not have been borne out if Fetterman himself were more stodgy than relatable, more like the stereotype of a college professor than a guy who had just hopped off his Harley. (This is, after all, Pennsylvania, arguably part of the Rust Belt and cultural cousin to Ohio.)

That explanation, related to Jentleson's suspicion (and hope), is speculative and though probably valid, applies specifically to the candidate himself. This, however, does not:

The abundance of evidence says that debates almost never matter. Yet in the face of all evidence and in many cases without bothering to check, many reporters immediately bought into the idea that this debate was an exception - that it had not just mattered, but was decisive.

Debates are rarely ultimately determinative, and seldom make a marginal difference in an election outcome, especially if there is more than one debate.

Surely, that opinion- observation, really- would be held also by Presidents H. Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore. Clinton is generally believed to have "won" at least two of her three debates with Donald Trump and Al Gore clearly "won" the first and third of his three debates with George W. Bush. (At the second, Gore seemed to have overdosed on Valium.) Kerry dominated- simply dominated- Bush in their debates and appeared to be the embodiment of a candidate who would be "ready on day one" for the job.

Nonetheless, the best example would be Ronald Reagan vs. Walter Mondale in 1984 because the first debate featured a 73-year-old candidate who appeared to be physically or mentally deficient, remarking in summation

I think that most of the people in this country would say, yes, they are better off than they were 4 years ago. The question, I think, should be enlarged. Is America better off than it was 4 years ago? And I believe the answer to that has to also be “yes.” 

There followed so much concern about the incumbent's fitness that the chairperson of the Republican National Committee was forced to deny his party's nominee harbored mental or physical deficiency. In the following faceoff, Reagan rambled in his closing statement about driving along a Pacific coast highway, nuclear weapons, and a time capsule. But it had no impact. He cleverly quipped, in a response to a question occasioned by his previous debate performance, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth, and inexperience. "

Game, set, match. Notwithstanding two closing statements that suggested the elderly Reagan was suffering from dementia, he had his sound bite- a devastating one- and he went on to crush the more capable Mondale.

Not surprisingly, the Oz campaign ran a debate snippet that displayed Fetterman fumbling while unable to give a to a question about fracking. Fetterman's advantage in polling went down- but his final margin of victory was extremely close (maybe even a little above) the margin which polls indicated the Democrat enjoyed before the debate.

Fortunately, the difference between the two candidates on abortion became ever clearer when in the debate Oz commented that "women, doctors, local political leaders" should be in on the decision. Evidently, it was a boon for Fetterman, as a CBS News exit poll found. 

Which ONE of these five issues mattered most in deciding how you voted today: (CHECK ONLY ONE)
Sample: 1,134	Fetterman	Oz
Crime (11%)	51%	49%
Abortion (37%)	78%	21%
Inflation (28%)	27%	72%
Gun policy (9%)	-	-
Immigration (7%)	-	-

Two years from now, during the next election cycle, news outlets will hype upcoming debates by trumpeting their importance to the outcome. Then, as almost always, they will be wrong. 

 

Share |

Blunder

Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman of Pennsylvania demonstrated that he is not a good debater. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in the Senate debate, Fetterman "appeared less polished than his" opposition and was "uncomfortable" with "frequent criticism." He had, as noted, "campaigned in a way that had, until now, largely shielded him from scrutiny on a big stage."

Those words were written on April 22 the day after the primary debate among Fetterman, Representative Conor Lamb, and State Senator Malcolm Kenyatta.

Soon afterward, and shortly before the primary he won, the Lieutenant Governor suffered a stroke, effects of which were evident at the faceoff Tuesday night.

That may- or may not- have been why Fetterman did not jump on Mehmet Oz's now infamous remark

As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that at all. I want women, doctors, local political leaders letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves.

Every voter should see this clip of Mehmet Oz, the Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, claiming that abortion should be a decision between “women, doctors, and local political leaders.”

Your body. Their choice. pic.twitter.com/1gqtysOtXb

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 26, 2022

Local political leaders? Picture a tearful of fearful pregnant woman in an office with her doctor and, say, Senator Ted Cruz- or perhaps Q Anon- adjacent Doug Mastriano, who will remain a Pennsylvania state senator after he loses the gubernatorial race to Democrat Josh Shapiro in two weeks. Better yet would have been Fetterman himself painting that picture.

Some of us are not quick on our feet. However, that's no excuse not to have prepared a pithy remark or two to undermine Mehmet Oz. 

When 37 seconds in, Fetterman stated "Send Dr. Oz back to New Jersey," that should not have been the high point of the debate for the Democrat. Yet, in the next 59 minutes and 23 seconds, the candidate whose social media feed once relentlessly slammed Oz for living outside of Pennsylvania, did not again utter "New Jersey."

Alex Norcia in The New York Times Magazine noted 7-8 weeks ago that the Fetterman campaign was (effectively) portraying Oz as "something that is, both regionally and nationwide, way more loathed: a guy from New Jersey."  He explained

It is, specifically, the idea that Oz is from New Jersey — a place that the rest of the country finds annoying and distasteful, and whose neighbors find it especially so — that resonates above all else....

Outsiders tend to see an obnoxious land of corrupt lawmakers, oil refineries and expensive tolls, the area you pass through on your way from Philadelphia to New York City.

It is a largely misleading stereotype, but worse yet (though unmentioned by Norcia): Oz is from north Jersey, the home of the "New York" Giants and "New York" Jets. Nonetheless, Fetterman made only a feeble effort on Tuesday night to connect his opponent to Pennsylvania's neighbor to the east. One possibility would have been  "I'd like your vote to continue fighting for Pennsylvanians, as I have as Lieutenant Governor. Mehmet Oz wants to be the third Senator from New Jersey."

There was at least one more failure. Appropriately, the debate's moderators referred to "Mr. Oz" and "Mr. Fetterman" while the Democratic candidate, incomprehensibly, referred to "Dr. Oz," rendering the Republican the legitimacy he arguably does not deserve and inarguably should not be granted by his opponent. Moreover, in this informal age, in which people often dress casually for church and funerals, hug rather than shake hands, and address strangers by their first name, there is no good reason for an opponent not to call Oz "Mehmet."  None.

John Fetterman may yet prevail in this race. However, it is one which should not have been close, stroke or not.

 

Share |

Not Quite Yet

I confess that I do not like Oprah Winfrey. I have never liked her, don't like her, and probably never will like her. 

Winfrey, or "Oprah" as an adoring media calls her, has never seemed to embody principle or a firm set of values. Money and image appear to be her guiding principles. There is no clear ideological reason that (as the video below reminds us) she endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. The dirty little secret (for which the elite would substitute "wonderful" for "dirty") is that she yearned for a President who would "make history," whatever benefit or harm he would bring to the country.

I posted yesterday two excellent tweets. Today, I reverse that and post tweets from one clueless, and one almost clueless, individual about arguably the most popular American celebrity of the past decades.

Every powerful person has a responsibility to speak when they see injustice in general, but especially when they helped set the injustice in motion.

Oprah should have campaigned relentlessly against Oz. I don’t believe she did.

Silence at injustice = support for injustice. https://t.co/aRTU4cWBBn

— Dr. Thrasher (@thrasherxy) May 18, 2022

"Oprah" is more than a "dialogue starter." As of 2021, she was considered the fourth most admired woman in the world. Reportedly worth approximately $2.6 billion, Winfrey is held in such esteem that the Smithsonian museum in 2018 dedicated to her an exhibition entitled "Watching Oprah: The Oprah Winfrey Show and American Culture." With such great influence and wealth comes great responsibility.

Winfrey did indeed launch the media career of Dr. Mehta Oz, who thereby became simply the far more marketable "Dr. Oz." She chose to promote his career despite the widespread belief in medical circles that Oz  stood upon a platform of quackery (video below from 12/21).  Winfrey promoted Dr. Oz- and his growing popularity in turn contributed to Oprah's own phenomenal success.  She commands a microphone more than almost anyone in this country, and if she were to choose publicly to deny responsibility for Dr. Oz' rise, she has every opportunity to do so.

Nonetheless, there was no reason heretofore for Ms. Winfrey to "campaign relentlessly against Oz."  Mehta Oz was running in a primary, not a general election.  If Winfrey had spoken out against Oz, she would have been aiding the candidacy of either David McCormick, a far-right hedge fund executive, or Kathy Barnette, apparently a far-right participant in the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2020. Though Oz would be a terrible US Senator, there is scant evidence that either of the other two wouldn't be at least as dangerous.

As of this writing, the race is sufficiently close that a recount is likely. If Oz does not prevail, Winfrey's silence will prove to have been irrelevant. If Oz does prevail, there is plenty of time for Ms. Winfrey to explain not only that Oz would not be a wise choice in November but that his opponent, John Fetterman, is far more dedicated to the democratic process and to the values of a free people.  

Patience, patience.  Tweeter Thrasher recognizes that powerful people should speak out against injustice, particularly when the individual (albeit lacking prescience) indirectly helped bring it about. But if there is a time for everything, the time for Oprah Winfrey to criticize Dr. Mehta Oa was not during a primary race but during a general election contest. It would be an invaluable part of her legacy.

 

Share! |

Not Yet Denying The Science

Dr. Mehmet Oz, who demands to be called "Doctor," has been generally a supporter of reproductive rights, as revealed in the video from David Doel below. However, he now is running for the GOP nomination for US Senator from Pennsylvania, and so he had a problem when interviewed by Fox News' Will Cain..

Cain is seen asking "when should we draw the line when abortion is legal" and Oz responded "As a doctor, I appreciate the sanctity of life and for that reason I'm strongly pro-life with the three exceptions I've mentioned. That's how I would vote."

He's a Republican, and so he would. However, Cain followed u with "and when does that life begin" and Oz replied "you know, again, if I'm pro-life, then it's a decision that comes back to the sanctity of when you think life does begin and I think it begins in the mother's womb."

If I'm pro-life. As if that weren't obvious enough, "appreciate the sanctity of life" comes off a little defensive, a statement even a pro-choice individual could make. Moreover, Oz need not declare himself "pro-life" more than once- arguably not even once- if he is against abortion rights, as he wants primary voters to believe.

I think it (life) begins in the mother's womb. That is a statement, incompatible with the belief that life begins at conception, that all pro-life individuals would make, This startling comment prompts Cain to ask "When you're in the mother's womb? But that carries you all the way up to nine months of pregnancy."

Of course it does, so Oz is left with "no, of course that life's already started when you're in your'e mother's womb but it's a rat hole to get trapped into different ways of talking about it."

Speaking of a "rat hole"- Oz continues floundering, also again pleading he is "pro-life" and that such "feelings (be) respected," which is not much of an ask.

We need as a nation to make sure the constitution is appropriately followed and people like me- and you may be in the same camp who are pro-life have our feelings respected and this is something that should not be taken away from us by judiciary legislating from the bench.

As against the judiciary legislating from the nearest Ace hardware store or Applebee's restaurant, I guess. Cain then mercifully ends the exchange and David Doel remarks

I have to laugh because Dr. Oz is clearly a fraud, as I'll get to, but now that he's running as a Republican candidate for Senate he has to play this game but even in playing this game he is unable to say that life begins at conception.

Unfortunately, if he is nominated and elected, Oz will be publicly and staunchly pro-life because it is part of the GOP litmus test, Still, Oz' inability to to declare forthrightly that life begins at conception is telling.

The reason the candidate was unwilling to lie about that one specific point was foretold in the first phrase he used in this portion of the interview.  As a doctor.

As a doctor, Oz may know As Gregg Easterbrook, who advocated prohibiting abortion in the third trimester, explained in January 2000:

- Regardless of abortion, two-thirds of conceptions fail;

- Lungs become able to function at about the 23rd week;

- Kicking, which begins at about the twentieth week, is probably a spasm; and

- Complex brain activity exists from the third trimester on.

If Oz does not know all that specifically, he probably is at least aware that the notion, whether religiously based or otherwise, that life begins at conception is factually unsustainable. 

The popular base of the Republican Party demands its nominees be anti-abortion rights and Oz therefore continually states that he is "pro-life." However, the public as a whole always has been more inclined to believe "life"- however defined- begins at conception than to be generally opposed to abortion rights or, especially, Roe v. Wade.  As Dr. Oz already (now) is on the record as being "pro-life," he must clean up his answers and declare, with fingers crossed behind his back, that life begins at conception.

    

 

Share |