The moderators did their job in Tuesday night’s Fetterman-Oz debate, and that allowed Oz to score a technical knockout.
Fetterman still was standing at the end of the hour, but he had been bloodied – metaphorically speaking.
I had hoped aloud in a previous blog post today that the moderators would ask tough questions of both candidates for U.S. Senate. They did.
The moderators also followed up when the candidates were evasive, attempting to pin them down. And the moderators did a reasonably good job of keeping the debate on schedule.
Fetterman did his best to derail that, interrupting Oz repeatedly, even in Oz’s final remarks, an extreme breach of debate etiquette.
Dr. Oz seemed to tire of Fetterman’s interruptions about three or four examples in and began to do so himself.
In general, Fetterman bumbled and stumbled through answers. His stock prepared line, to be uttered early and often, was if Oz is talking he’s not telling the truth. There were also periodic references to 10 or so mansions Oz is said to own.
It’s hard to describe exactly what Fetterman was doing as he plodded through answers, paused for uncomfortably long moments and often issued a word salad response fit for Clueless Joe Biden.
Example: When asked what he would do to improve the college education situation, Fetterman said, “It should be affordable.”
The moderators wanted to know how he’d achieve that.
“It costs too much,” was the best Fetterman could manage by way of response.
That was in addition to claiming – falsely – that Oz had not answered the very same question when asked previously.
Oz had suggested a combination of pruning unproductive middle management that has expanded rapidly at institutions of higher education, along with making remote learning more accessible. These steps would, indeed, cut costs and increase affordability.
So, Oz repeated his answer for the benefit of Fetterman before he addressed the next question from the moderators.
Fetterman eschewed his trademark shorts and hooded sweatshirt, instead donning a suit that fit about as well as if he’d gone down to the local funeral home to pick it up second-hand.
Fetterman was particularly bad on the subject of fracking, insisting he was in favor of it to produce hydrocarbons, despite a quote the moderators displayed that had him saying he was against fracking.
The moderators called Fetterman on the outright contradiction and he had nothing for them.
Dr. Oz had some awkward moments and didn’t remind anyone of noted orator Williams Jennings Bryan with his performance. But he was up against such weak competition, he should be nominated for a Golden Tonsil Award.
Oz repeatedly made Fetterman uncomfortable by forcing him to defend his pro-criminal, anti-energy, pro-socialism track record.
Oz also brought up Fetterman’s shotgun detention of a black jogger, just because he could as the lead law enforcement official in the thriving metropolis of Braddock.
Fetterman’s summation put a weak exclamation point on his decidedly uneven performance, citing a lot of vague concepts. It was basically vote for me because I have tattoos and I’m one of you and we have to hold back the Republican hordes.
Oz, meanwhile, used his summation to reach out to both sides in promising unity and progress for Pennsylvania by working together.
It may not have considerable effect on the election outcome, but Oz won this debate. Thanks to the even-handed moderators for allowing that to happen.
Sam Ross Jr's site 