Originally Posted By TonyF:
Watched Steve Bannon's podcast today because he had guests on that were focused on the PA senate race. First was McCormick (by phone) and I promptly muted the TV audio. Next was Jack Posobiec. Barnette sent him her military records because being a Navy veteran, she thought he'd be in a position to help push back against the brietbart piece. He basically stated the criticism of her record was a nothing-burger.

Then there was a Trump lawyer who was promoting Oz because of Trump's endorsement and the consensus is that Lt. Gov. Fetterman is coming on strong and the republican party needs someone who can beat him in the general election and that person is Oz.

Bannon almost made me blow lunch. He sheepishly abstained from "almost" expressing whom he favors, but nevertheless echoed the Trump lawyer's position and then, as he did when Posobiec was on air, kept stating that Barnette hasn't been "properly vetted" based upon some of the criticism that was being leveled at her on Hannity's show and elsewhere. What put me over the edge was that Posobiec mentioned how his team at Human Events scoured all 1600 Oz episodes and not once did they find an example of Oz being aligned with Trump on any issue. So the fact that Barnette hasn't been "properly vetted" = bad, but somehow in 1600 episodes of Dr. Oz and not finding one issue where he was aligned with Trump = ok?

Not just that. They made much of the fact that Barnette is being promoted with TV ads by https://www.clubforgrowth.org/ which they claim is an "establishment" organization opposed to Trump's policies. I don't know enough about them to offer an opinion. They mentioned that Club for Growth supported Josh Mandel in Ohio, who lost to Trump endorsed JD Vance, and thus Club for Growth is only supporting Barnette to engage in a "proxy war" with Trump whom they have been at odds with since Trump was in office.

This also implies that in accepting aid from Club for Growth that Barnette perhaps isn't really MAGA

Also interviewed was (former) Amb. Rick Grenell who is working with Trump's team on the endorsements. Said they dug up some tweets wherein she made some homophobic remarks and other comments that were anti-Islam inferring that she may be religiously intolerant.

So, it appears Trump is being "pragmatic" with respect to whom he is endorsing.

Originally Posted By macro:

I listened to the interview that morning on the ride to work. She came across as unimpressive. Best case, she was terribly unprepared and unpolished. Worst case, she is a liar who is just playing the same role as every other professional politician. I would really have a tough time voting for her after hearing that interview. It was pretty awkward toward the end.

Originally Posted By Lost-Drive-In:
At least we have Mastriano. The media around here really hates him. I think that they might be scared.

Originally Posted By TonyF:


This the core issue. Oz was never a conservative. He compromised his principles and sold his soul to get Trump's endorsement.

I suppose this is another one of Trump's "famous deals", an endorsement in exchange for a MAGA imprimatur because Oz had no conservative credentials. Trump's endorsement is supposed to somehow endear him to Trump's base.

And how did so many of Trump's "excellent, fantastic and every superlative in the dictionary" chosen ones pan out (Jim Mattis, John Kelly, McMaster, Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, and Mark Esper ad nauseum)?

Anyone want odds as to how long the Trump / Oz honeymoon will last?

Originally Posted By Lost-Drive-In:
I'm cautiously optimistic that Oz or McCormick have to be better than Toomey.

Worst case our nominee crashes and burns, then we end up with Fetterman for life.

Originally Posted By bendersgame:
Spider [and anyone else] - if you can't articulate a response, I'll have a great deal of trouble taking your concerns seriously.

What positions or policies do you object to?

Honestly, most of this is moot, as Fetterman is going to win the election.  It isn't as if a used fart could lose to Oz.

Originally Posted By bendersgame:
Joe - thank you.  **THAT** is a deal breaker.  I came from Mass, land of mag bans etc.  It's crap.  I don't want it here.

I can't give an item by item response to the person who just listed Fetterman's platform, but since he made no effort, and the points are moot...no point in purse swinging on the intertubes.  No, I actually support several of his points - but now 'no fun guns' is a killer.  

Too bad the (r) party can't get past the recent foolishness and get a new leader who can LEAD.