PA state senate: Oz vs. Fetterman

[temporal1]

If politicians are basically just going to follow what the party bosses dictate, does it really matter whether they sharp as a tack?

biden is living proof.

(i believed obama was, too.)
he was basically plucked out of nowhere, then groomed for the (hollywood formula production) role.
he was a willing student with an admiring audience.

hollywood has had its share of successful movies based on U.S. presidents. they feel confident they can cast a good production.
it’s all about reading scripts. often, no lines need to be memorized! they “just read” (with emotion and hand gestures thrown in for emphasis). Chuck Schumer did this every time.

since 2020, the mysterious “they” turn mics off+on at will - even for presidents! crazy times.

[Josh]

If politicians are basically just going to follow what the party bosses dictate, does it really matter whether they sharp as a tack?

Interestingly, the left has been making that argument - that the only qualification needed for a senator is to vote "yea" or "nay".

[steve-in-kville]

If politicians are basically just going to follow what the party bosses dictate, does it really matter whether they sharp as a tack?

biden is living proof.

(i believed obama was, too.)
he was basically plucked out of nowhere, then groomed for the (hollywood formula production) role.
he was a willing student with an admiring audience.

hollywood has had its share of successful movies based on U.S. presidents. they feel confident they can cast a good production.
it’s all about reading scripts. often, no lines need to be memorized! they “just read” (with emotion and hand gestures thrown in for emphasis). Chuck Schumer did this every time.

since 2020, the mysterious “they” turn mics off+on at will - even for presidents! crazy times.

All this time I thought it was the subterranean lizard people that controlled everything

[Bootstrap]

Oz is a pretty bad candidate and in general, his and Mastriano's candidacies speak poorly of Pennsylvania Republicans. Fetterman's continued candidacy though speaks even worse of Pennsylvania Democrats.

Celebrity politics. Not a good thing.

[mike]

Oz is a pretty bad candidate and in general, his and Mastriano's candidacies speak poorly of Pennsylvania Republicans. Fetterman's continued candidacy though speaks even worse of Pennsylvania Democrats.

Celebrity politics. Not a good thing.

Do you think this kind of thing actually indicates the limits of centralized control in party politics? I mean, anybody can run, and unless there is some really good alternative, or some kind of herculean effort on the part of party leadership, basically anybody can rise to the top?

[barnhart]

Oz is a pretty bad candidate and in general, his and Mastriano's candidacies speak poorly of Pennsylvania Republicans. Fetterman's continued candidacy though speaks even worse of Pennsylvania Democrats.

Celebrity politics. Not a good thing.

Do you think this kind of thing actually indicates the limits of centralized control in party politics? I mean, anybody can run, and unless there is some really good alternative, or some kind of herculean effort on the part of party leadership, basically anybody can rise to the top?

Or at least "anybody" who has powerful celebrity support?

[steve-in-kville]

Do you think this kind of thing actually indicates the limits of centralized control in party politics? I mean, anybody can run, and unless there is some really good alternative, or some kind of herculean effort on the part of party leadership, basically anybody can rise to the top?

It depends on what level of politics. To play in the big league one has to be connected. Ronald Reagon was an actor. The Bush's were in big oil. Obama was a civil rights lawyer.... and so on.

[Bootstrap]

Oz is a pretty bad candidate and in general, his and Mastriano's candidacies speak poorly of Pennsylvania Republicans. Fetterman's continued candidacy though speaks even worse of Pennsylvania Democrats.

Celebrity politics. Not a good thing.

Do you think this kind of thing actually indicates the limits of centralized control in party politics? I mean, anybody can run, and unless there is some really good alternative, or some kind of herculean effort on the part of party leadership, basically anybody can rise to the top?

I think there has been a huge shift in politics toward celebrity culture and away from policy and concern for the structure of our democracy. And toward centralized party loyalty. You see this when someone of integrity identifies scandalously wrong behavior with solid evidence, but gets accused of disloyalty and targeted with death threats and primary challengers and censured by his or her political party.

Not that long ago, political parties were gatekeepers, keeping the crazies out of office, encouraging more serious candidates to run. Not always - it's not as black and white as all that - but in general, a whole lot more than today. And that's the value of having parties that can screen candidates. The most interesting personality on Twitter might not be the person a party should run if they want to stand for their own values, but that person may be very popular, especially with primary voters.

And I think it's related to the way our news is reported in broadcast media and online - these days, many broadcast channels treat politics as a WWF match with colorful personalities trying to defeat each other, not as a way of figuring out how to govern the country. So they pick Hulk Hogan, not Paul Ryan. Facts and evidence and policy aren't really where the action is at.

Behind the scenes, some real policy does get done. But it's not always what you see in the headlines.

[Josh]

Do you think this kind of thing actually indicates the limits of centralized control in party politics? I mean, anybody can run, and unless there is some really good alternative, or some kind of herculean effort on the part of party leadership, basically anybody can rise to the top?

It depends on what level of politics. To play in the big league one has to be connected. Ronald Reagon was an actor. The Bush's were in big oil. Obama was a civil rights lawyer.... and so on.

Indeed. Both Republicans and Democrats are told, 'You need to vote for [candidate] because they'll vote yea or nay on the important issues!'

But the question is neither asked nor answered: who decides if an issue or law is "Republican" or "Democrat"?

Who's in charge?

[steve-in-kville]

And I think it's related to the way our news is reported in broadcast media and online - these days, many broadcast channels treat politics as a WWF match with colorful personalities trying to defeat each other, not as a way of figuring out how to govern the country.

This forum reminds me of a WWF match some days