“Why the hell did Fetterman agree to this?” a Democratic lawmaker backer told Axios. It would have been better to dodge the debate, the source argued.
THAT’S the lesson of all this?
Just when you think the Democratic Party cannot hit new lows, here comes a maneuver that would make Machiavelli blush. They actively covered up the disqualifying medical impairment of stroke victim John Fetterman to get him into the Senate. The one and only debate with Dr. Mehmet Oz on Tuesday night revealed the truth.
But they’re not ashamed that Fetterman is unfit for office. They’re mad they got caught.
So long as he’s a liberal, who cares about his mental state?
The media, desperate to help the Democrats, aided in the deception. When NBC reporter Dasha Burns accurately noted that Fetterman had trouble making small talk, reporters closed ranks and bashed her. Egged on, Fetterman’s wife demanded NBC apologize and Burns face “consequences.”
Even now, when Fetterman should in good conscience drop out of the race, pundits are scrambling to try to salvage his candidacy.
To what end? If Fetterman is elected, will he get closed captioning for top-secret briefings and meetings with foreign heads of state? Did the stroke affect his reasoning as well as his speaking? It seems so during his muddled, “I do, I don’t” answer about fracking. Will he get better, or will he continue to deteriorate?
Or is this all just a ploy for him to get into office, step down and have a replacement named (so long as Pennsylvania has a Democratic governor, of course)?
Unfortunately, the cover-up succeeded in one way: The debate was pushed off until after early voting started, and more than 600,000 voters cast ballots without knowing the severity of Fetterman’s condition.
Democrats are so cynical that they’d elect anyone, in any medical condition, so long as it gives them the majority. And they’ll play Three-card Monte with “democracy” to hide the truth from voters.
All those lectures about “fitness for office” for GOP candidates, chastising Republicans on Twitter and the New York Times “analysis” pieces — they are all a sham. A hypocritical, repulsive sham.
