John Fetterman's Stroke Matters Less Than How He'd Vote
By: Michael Luciano (Mediaite)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Michael LucianoOct 26th, 2022, 5:41 pm
Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) had a stroke in May. This, we are told by Republicans and centrist pundits, is extremely relevant to his Senate race.
Hogwash.
Fetterman participated in his first and only debate with his Republican opponent Mehmet Oz (R) on Tuesday night. The lieutenant governor struggled, to say the least. He was allowed to use a monitor displaying closed captioning because he sometimes has difficulty processing spoken words. Several of his responses were disjointed and awkwardly delivered.
Predictably, the pundit class is acting as though lawmaking is akin to being a surgeon or an architect. If that were the case, then yes, we should be concerned about a recent stroke victim transplanting a new kidney into someone or planning repairs on Pittsburgh's Roberto Clemente Bridge.
"The question is, how impaired is he?" Joe Scarboroughsaid on Wednesday morning. "And that's something that the voters of Pennsylvania are going to be sorting through, even if people on the Left want to pretend it doesn't exist. It does exist, but does it mean he can't serve as senator?"
No, it doesn't. There is nothing technical about being a senator that requires razor-sharp mental acuity because that's not what this job entails, as evidenced by the fact the Senate has the ignominious distinction of being full of decrepit old people. Dianne Feinstein, who is in the process of losing it, is a senator. So is Pat Leahy, who's calling it quits. And Chuck Grassley. Hell, Strom Thurmond was 100 years old when he finally retired from the chamber and looked and sounded every bit a centenarian.
Also, like Fetterman, Sen. Ben Ray Lujan had a stroke earlier this year. There have been no calls for him to step down. Former Sen. Mark Kirk also had a stroke while serving back in 2012 and was a senator for five more years before losing reelection. Again, there were no demands he resign.
Moreover - and I can't emphasize this enough - in 2000, Missouri voters elected a dead guy to the United States Senate.
That's right. Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash less than a month before the election, but that didn't prevent him from defeating incumbent John Ashcroft, who you'd think would've had the edge in the race simply by virtue of having a pulse.
Obviously, it's not ideal to have barely coherent geriatrics, other impaired lawmakers, and dead people elected to the federal legislature. But to speak as though Fetterman's ascension to the Senate would be beneath its dignity is nonsense. And again, what truly matters is how Fetterman would vote.
Oz has said uninsured Americans "don't have a right to health." He also offered the oftentimes contradictory view in Tuesday's debate that abortion should be decided by "women, doctors, [and] local political leaders." He opposes red flag laws that aim to prevent nutjobs from buying firearms. He wants to give tax cuts to millionaires like himself.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that this race could determine which party controls the Senate in the next Congress. Clearly, that has huge implications for President Joe Biden's appointments that require Senate confirmation, which obviously includes federal judges.
It's unfortunate Fetterman had a stroke. But at the end of the day, he's the nominee and his views more closely align with mine. And you better believe that if Oz were the one who had the stroke, Republicans would be insisting he's still up for the task.
Fetterman's stroke matters, but it's hardly the most important facet of his candidacy.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
Filed Under: John FettermanMehmet Oz Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post Load Comments
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
At last ! Someone bringing us back to reality.
I happen to agree with your title.
Still think his physical condition makes him unfit to serve? This article makes a pretty convincing argument otherwise.
My main objection to Fetterman is that he is a Bernie Sanders democrat.
As a Senator he would be voting as such and would be very limited in all the other duties of a Senator.
You dont sound as convinced as you were yesterday that Fetterman is physically unfit to serve.
Again John, my main objection to Fetterman is on ideological grounds. We all know he will be able to vote the party line if he were to win. Senators do have other functions besides voting
BTW my stand on Fetterman has not changed one iota.
Grassley is 89 years old and running for another 6 year term.
So the argument is that Fetterman will be ok because the Senate has had other Senators who should not have been there either.
That argument is rather sad. We should demand better of our leadership, not let them in because the other guys have done it before. Putting partisanship before the good of the country is not a way to properly govern IMO.
You want to talk about how the trust fund baby; Uncle Fester wannabe; virtue signaling racist will vote?
How about soft on crime. Very soft. Very, very pro criminal soft.
How about energy? Only Fetterman and Brandon could flip flop twice in the same sentence. Maybe someone should tell Uncle Fester that the state he is looking to represent makes money on fracking.
He is all anti business. Must have gone to the same economics courses as Brandon.
Of course Uncle Fester is the perfect virtue signaling elitist Democrat racist. Anyone in the GOP that had done this would have been instantly run out of office forever.
If you like the way Brandon and the Democrats have driven this country into a ditch; and backing a virtue signaling elitist racist; then vote for Uncle Fester. He will fit perfectly in with the radical Dems and the squad.
Your Honor...May I present Exhibit A
There is nothing technical about being a senator that requires razor-sharp mental acuity.
May I present Exhibit B
Acknowledging it is "not ideal" is a backhanded homage to the integrity of the institution, and only a slight homage at that. Strom Thurmond's time in office is a damned joke. Leahy? Feinstein? Jokes.
This article alleges opponents of Fetterman are arguing the position requires "razor sharp" mental acuity. I have yet to see people making that assertion. The reality is, there are still people out there that believe our representatives should be able to process information, understand what they are reading, have a grasp on the logical consequences of the actions they are taking as a representative. The last sentence of the quoted material is all anyone needs to know though. Who gives a damn if a waiter's questions as to what sides Fetterman wants confuses him, or if he can't remember what he ordered in the first place? Is he able to vote? Will he vote in line with how those in control tell him? If yes to those, he is a perfect candidate. Why? The people in control don't want thinkers in D.C., they want yes men. The lower the IQ the better.
I'll say this. If you vote for Fetterman, you are a dumbass. Why? You are voting for choosing to put someone in office who will vote for legislation because someone else tells him to, not because it serves the public good. This article is an example of the brainwashing taking place. This article minimizes the notion that a senator should actually read, understand, and contemplate the logical consequences of a piece of legislation before voting. Before you say, "but I agree with his platform;" understand, he has no platform. Once in office, he is simply a vote, as the article claims. Sadly, as suggested by the multiple references made in the article, that is becoming common place. Wonder why confidence in the federal legislature is so low? Here you go. We are putting people in D.C. that don't give shit, and in Fetterman's situation, don't have the mental acuity to give a shit. In other words, we a sending people to DC that will cut both of their hands off because the party tells them to. Fuck that. I want someone that has enough sense and mettle to do the job as it was intended to be done. Is Oz the guy? I don't know. Is Fetterman? That's a resounding hell no. I'm not sure that fucker remembers what he ordered, by the time it comes out of the kitchen. If you think it is a joke that someone that can't read a teleprompter is voting on legislation that impacts the entire nation, then you are part of the problem.
Lets test every congressperson and senator then, at the federal and state level, and make sure they have enough on the ball to do the job THE WAY WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO.
There are a lot of traitors in the Republican house caucus. And there are nutjobs like Marjorie Tayor Greene, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, and others. Is Greene "fit" to serve? She claimed that Jewish space lasers were causing wildfires on the west coast.
There is no evidence at all that Fetterman would not understand the issues before the senate.
You see any reference to party in my post? No. [Deleted] You are selling an idea that it is better to put a drooling buffoon in office, so long as they vote along party lines.
You read my posts yesterday. There is evidence. The inability to carry on a conversation is a serious red flag, and in most all measures is a cornerstone of incapacity. However, you don't give a shit about his ability. The article you are trumpeting doesn't give a shit about ability. The article you are promoting gives a shit about one thing. Will he vote a certain way? So, to that end, it's too late to question whether or not he has the ability. Your promotion of this article is telling enough. You don't care if he is able to comprehend. You are all about minimizing the importance of the deliberative process. You want a yes man, a zombie, a robot programmed to vote a certain way regardless of the logical consequences; however, you also bitch the most when someone else does that. Quit being a part of the problem. Point out the bullshit, regardless of party affiliation. Your article is about Fetterman, not Greene, Boebert or Gosar.
If only you meant that. When a person's actions impacts millions of people, it's not too much to ask that they are not only capable of deliberating, but that they also do deliberate the consequences through thoughtful, careful consideration.
"Carrying on a conversation" is not a requirement to be a senator.
This country elected a buffoon president in 2016 so clearly we dont have consistent or inviolable standards.
And the country elected a replacement buffoon in 2020, what's your point?
Shouldn't we as citizens demand more of our elected officials? Shouldn't we demand that they are competent and able to perform for the betterment of the country as a whole? Or are you just so partisan that you refuse to allow for any other viewpoints and demand obedience to a political party?
But he is the REPLACEMENT buffoon.
Who said it was? I am simply pointing out that the inability to carry on a conversation is a cornerstone of incapacity. You have anything to say with regard to that?
Yes, and continuing with that line of thought, we should pile on? We should not expect our elected representatives to be able to; process information, think rationally, be autonomous, be deliberative, because you can't point to examples or instances where that is not the case? Again, do you have any thoughts on the deliberative process?
For Trumpsters and MAGA to pretend that they have some sort of standard for intelligence and character that candidates should conform to is laughable. Really not even worth discussing as a serious topic.
Some of us have! But one voice does not a government make.
It's quite obvious that according to you the only important qualification for election is if the person will vote the way the Democrat party tells him to vote. But by all means, continue with your usual rant about how I'm a Trumpster or I'm MAGA.. It only tells more about you however
That's why I said "we as citizens". It takes all of us to create the government we have, our choices in the voting booth are what makes the government that we choose. So why should we not demand more from our elected officials? All our elected officials.
Then explain who you meant is the buffoon from your statement in 5.1.5 where you stated
or claim the title for yourself. But without further explanation of what you tried to say, it is difficult to understand what you mean by the snark.
"'President Biden is not THE buffoon."
Perhaps. But he IS a bumbling, mumbling idiot
Yes. We must.
Good talk
Well said.
I think anyone in PA that votes for a TV doctor is a dumbass. But that's just my opinion. At least Fetterman has some political experience. He was mayor of Bradford, PA and is currently the Lt Governor. I don't think Oz actually lives in PA
He is rumored to have ownership in 10 mansions with his wife and mother in law plus numerous
private college dormitories in Turkey. ( 18 parcels of real estate )
He is presently renting a home in Bryn Athyn PA next to the mini mansion his mother in law is having renovated with the plan of buying the renovated home if he wins the election.
Other versions of the story is that Dr & Mrs Oz already bought the home from her Mom with a clause that if they don't stay, the previous owner has right of first refusal.
So the move doesn't sound permanent.
Not to mention the fact that some of her American real estate is insanely expensive.
His 11 bedroom home on the beach in Palm Springs is available to rent for $90K a month.
What did Oprah see in this guy, just $?
Never got Dr Phil either. Both hacks.
You've got me, never watched either show.
I watched Phil once. Reminded me of Jerry Springer trying to be a phycologist.
Never saw Oz.
Apparently Oz's show was critical to her success especially in launching her own network.
I saw him infrequently but he always seemed to be pushing borderline "internet
miracles" and he was always being challenged top reveal his financial ties to some of the questionable products.
Notably, Oprah has not endorsed Oz and Oz has asked her not to get involved in any way.
She is protecting a brand.
Trout, that's a better line of thought than others are promoting. My response to that would be that the house and senate were not designed to be a place where politicians went to spend eternity, or reserved only for politicians. The seats were intended to be filled by regular folks, for a brief period. Doctors, farmers, plumbers, lawyers, didn't matter. Bring your knowledge and experience to the table, and let's deliberate.
Several people on here have expressed the idea of "this is how it is done now, so deal with it." I'm not in disagreement that deliberation appears to be at an all time minimum, or that we are represented by true politicians. That does appear to be where we are. Any question as to why approval rating for the federal legislature is so low? It's not because these assclown politicians are doing such a good job, by voting strictly along party lines.
We are, at the same time, concerned about where a person's loyalty lies because of money, and dismissive of the fact that someone is beholden to someone else, depending on the party affiliation. In other words, we are accepting of politicians, and have forgotten that the legislature should be composed of average people, from all walks, not beholden to someone else's dollar. We accept the game, but polls indicate we aren't happy with the results of the game. At some point, we need enough people from all ideologies to say "enough of this shit."
Thats not what the founders thought. Dont you respect the founders?
No, that's what they thought. If you are referring to the original design of senators being chosen by the publicly elected legislature, then you are not comparing apples to apples. The founding fathers were fearful of factions, political kickbacks, and the threat of a ruling political class of elites...like we have now. They were fearful that a senate, composed of members elected by popular vote, would lead to corruption. That doesn't mean they wanted career politicians. They wanted the opposite. They wanted people that were not beholden to factions or specials interests. If you can find some literature suggesting otherwise, please share it here.
Right, and Republicans are such rebels they always vote their conscience and not what their party is demanding of them. /s
Right now, with the extreme partisan politics virtually every candidate elected will be voting party lines, that's just the political environment we live in. You're a dumbass if you believe Dr. Oz would be any different.
Never claimed Republicans are not guilty. Never said I believed Oz was different. In fact, I said I don't know if he would be a guy that would actually deliberate on legislation. At a minimum, Oz has the appearance of the ability to be different. The point of the article is...fuck it...we don't give a damn if the guy is a drooling zombie, so long as he votes how we want him to. If this article was about Oz's mental faculties, I'd be writing the same shit here. Bottom line. This article is promoting a terrible notion, regardless of which party you align with.
I'd like for someone to respond with a legitimate reason as to why they believe mob rule is a good thing for the whole of the US. Don't minimize the real issue by claiming both sides have done it, are doing it, etc. Give me a legitimate, heart felt statement as to why you believe such policymaking behavior is good. Give me a good reason as to why we should not demand representatives that are free thinkers.
Afraid you'll never get that. All you will get (if anything, I'm betting on no other replies to this post) will be partisan talking points about how bad/evil the other party is and how their party is the paragon of virtue and is always looking out for the little guy. In other words, if anybody else replies to your post it will confirm they grew up on a farm and they know how to shovel it higher.
You know you're in trouble when you have to call in the not-so-dynamic duo.............
The only way that would happen would be a Rapture and Fester is the only one left.
It does matter less but the Dems really should have replaced him on the ticket.
He ability to function verbally is impaired. Gabby Giffords wasn't able to come back 100% either. Things like this happen to people. It happened to Fetterman.