Democratic Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman on Oct. 25 gave what is likely the worst performance in a televised debate in U.S. history.
It was a difficult and sad thing to watch.
Fetterman, the state’s lieutenant governor, is continuing to recover from a serious stroke, one that appears to have done grave damage to his cognitive and auditory processing abilities.
MIDTERMS 2022 LIVE: UPDATES FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AHEAD OF CRUCIAL ELECTION
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Republican candidate in the race, “has specifically said you have not paid your taxes,” said debate moderator Lisa Sylvester. “And that you want to raise taxes on Americans. How do you respond?”
“Absolutely,” responded Fetterman. “The Oz Rule, of course, he’s lying. It was helping two students 17 years ago to help them, you know, buy their own homes. They for, didn’t pay the bills and it got, er, paid, and it has never been an issue in any of the campaign before. It was all about nonprofit.”
It was like this for the entirety of the hourlong debate.
Fetterman is clearly struggling. He clearly needs to rest and recuperate from his stroke. He is clearly not in any condition to campaign for the Senate. He is clearly not in any condition to perform the duties of a senator should he win the race. Everyone with eyes and ears can see this.
But you try telling this to the corporate media, which have gone from assuring the public there is nothing wrong with Fetterman to arguing it’s very brave, actually, for a man with serious health and cognitive troubles to continue campaigning.
“Whatever voters ultimately decide at the polls,” noted the Washington Post in a post-debate report, “Fetterman’s performance marks something of a milestone for the disability community, which remains underrepresented at every level of elected office.”
Said the New York Times in a write-up of its own: “For many people with disabilities who watched the Pennsylvania Senate debate, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman’s performance against Dr. Mehmet Oz was both a sign of how far they had come in political representation and a reminder of how far they have left to go.”
Then, there’s Slate, the king of contrarian opinion pieces: “Actually, John Fetterman’s debate performance was fine.”
This new narrative (that Fetterman’s mere presence at the debate represents a major moral victory, considering his condition) is astonishing. After all, it was just a few weeks ago NBC News journalist Dasha Burns caught hell from her coworkers and media peers, including those at the New York Times and the Washington Post, for remarking off-handedly, “In small talk before [our] interview, it wasn’t clear [Fetterman] was understanding our conversation.”
Burns’s media colleagues, even those within the NBC family, savaged her for this comment, accusing her of everything from ableism to being bad at making conversation. There is nothing wrong with Fetterman, they shot back. Everything you’ve heard about his post-stroke condition is a damned dirty lie, Burns’s critics asserted.
Leading the charge against the NBC journalist was New York magazine editor-at-large Kara Swisher, who responded: “Sorry to say but I talked to [Fetterman] for over an hour without stop or any aides and this is just nonsense. Maybe this reporter is just bad at small talk.”
However, after the debate and after the people of Pennsylvania saw for themselves what members of the press had worked so hard to obscure, Swisher shared an Atlantic article, highlighting the following passage (emphasis added): “Tonight’s hour-long exchange was, in some ways, a Rorschach test of comfort with disability. … We are a culture of soundbites, mic drops, and clap backs. To speak in any way that deviates from the norm is to summon ridicule and judgment.”
“Deviates from the norm”? What does Swisher mean by highlighting this passage? She had just assured everyone Fetterman had no trouble communicating!
Burns is owed an apology. While we’re at it, Democrats and Fetterman’s fans in the press likewise owe him an apology for their efforts to drag his body across the finish line.
Leaks
Politico has some explaining to do.
On Oct. 7, the Virginia-based news outlet published a report revealing Air Force veteran and Republican congressional candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green is a victim of sexual assault.
Green’s response to the article was both swift and furious.
She claimed she begged Politico not to disclose that she was assaulted by an Iraqi serviceman when she served overseas. Moreover, Green claimed, Politico obtained details of the assault via illicit and unethical means. The incident is not a matter of public record. To know what happened, you’d need at least Green’s confidential Air Force personnel file, which is apparently what Politico got its hands on after someone improperly leaked it, the Republican candidate alleged.
Not so, responded Politico’s Vice President of Marketing and Communications Brad Dayspring. Politico obtained the records through the usual channels, he said.
“[S]hould POLITICO not report on publicly available documents obtained by [Freedom of Information Act] request?” he asked. “The records in question are publicly available documents that can be obtained by a standard FOIA request.”
About that: The Air Force confirmed this week Green’s records were indeed released without proper authorization. They were leaked.
“Based on the preliminary findings of an investigation,” said Chief of Media Operations at the Air Force Ann Stefanek, “it appears information was released to a third party by a junior individual who didn’t follow proper procedures and obtain required consent.”
She added, “The Department of the Air Force takes its responsibility to safeguard private information seriously and the matter remains under investigation.”
Elsewhere, Indiana Republican Reps. Jim Banks and Larry Bucshon claimed they learned in a conversation with Air Force Inspector General Lt. Gen. Stephen Davis that Green’s file was leaked specifically to an opposition research firm, which then gave the file to Politico.
In a letter to the Defense Department and the Air Force inspector general, Green requested an investigation into how Politico obtained her file.
“The fact that my file has been leaked in the course of my campaign for United States Congress leads me to believe that it was politically motivated,” the letter read.
Green, who is running to represent Indiana’s 1st Congressional District, continued, asserting she “did not consent” to have her Air Force file released to Politico or anyone else.
This incident raises so many questions.
First, who leaked the file?
Second, why would Politico’s vice president of marketing and communications claim his newsroom obtained the records via a simple FOIA request when the Air Force itself disputes this assertion?
Lastly, how is it possible the leaked documents traded so many hands, making their way eventually to Politico, without a single political operative questioning the prudence and ethics of outing a survivor of sexual assault?
Vote Democrat this November and restore our “norms”!
