This Ridiculous Republican Op-ed Offers a Truly Puzzling Endorsement of Dr. Oz
I GUESS you'd call it an endorsement.
In recent months and especially the last few weeks, it’s become more apparent than ever that the Republican Party does not actually care about any of the things they’ve spent decades pretending to care about—small government, family values, strong economy, etc. etc.—but is only actually interested in one thing: gaining and maintaining power. That’s always been pretty clear but this recent campaign season has made it undeniable, as the GOP has chosen to stand by what have to be some of the worst candidates they’ve ever had on the ballot—as well as some public figures who aren’t even running.
Republicans have shown they do not care about the quality, ability, or ethics of their members, they only care about having as many of them in power as possible.
That’s a fact that most Republicans would probably try to deny or in some way obfuscate. But in an op-ed published at The Hill, one Republican businessman has just gone ahead and said it plainly. Addressing the Senate race in Pennsylvania between John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz, Gene Marks wrote that Oz, the GOP candidate, would be a terrible senator. He’s laughably unqualified and his positions on a lot of issues are “disconcertingly vague.”
“Mehmet Oz would be a terrible senator,” Marks wrote. This, remember, is an endorsement of Oz.
Marks writes what we all know to be true: “Oz is unqualified to be a U.S. senator. His motives are dubious, his support of former President Trump is disturbing, his medical ethics are questionable and his commitment to his prospective constituents is uncertain.”
As Marks sees it, those are reasons to vote for Oz. His stance seems to basically boil down to an argument that Oz is so inept that he would be easily manipulated by Republican Party leadership.
He writes that “based on what I’ve seen of Oz’s shallowness, the man would be so romanced by his newfound national stature and so desperate to maintain it that he would do whatever is necessary for his party to support him going forward. That means rubber-stamping any position the Republican Party takes. I like that; it’s a good thing.”
That’s the level of incisive political analysis we’re dealing with here. Dr Oz. = bad, Republicans = good.
Marks specifically says that there are some “social issues” he disagrees with his party over, specifically abortion and guns. But he’s more than willing to sacrifice the bodily autonomy of half the population and the physical safety of all of us in order to preserve what he sees as the only real important issue: business. (Never mind, I guess, the fact that abortion is 100% an economic issue.)
In describing what he sees as necessary practices and policies to improve the economy, Marks’ support of Oz at the expense of Pennsylvanians starts to make total sense. Marks is against investment in green energy industries, he’s anti-union, anti-worker, and against raising the minimum wage. Basically his view of business and larger politics seems to boil down to “I will eagerly sacrifice your civil rights and general wellbeing in order to pay workers as little as possible.” What a stand-up guy.
There is no reason why The Hill should be paying this man money to publish such a garbage take but it’s not the first time they’ve done so. Just look at this remarkable turd published just last month:
It’s also worth remembering that back in 2016, leading up to the presidential election, there was an idea that Donald Trump could be a useful tool for the Republican Party. He, too, was totally unqualified and inept. A lot of people thought he would surround himself with knowledgable people and listen to them while towing the party line. Instead, he dragged the entire Republican party farther down into the racist, authoritarian, conspiracy-driven muck. But sure, why not continue to underestimate the clowns? What could possibly go wrong?
(image: Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images for Advertising Week New York)
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]