Wow. CNN starting to criticize Democrats is remarkable enough, but the Washington Post biting the metaphorical hand that feeds it?
Theories abound. Maybe, as my freind Tom Fuller says, the Post editors have concluded that “there is some shit I will not eat.” Maybe Biden’s Speech From Hell that had fascist techniques all over it while calling half the nation fascist was too much even for these long-time accessories. I don’t know, but yesterday the Post editors erupted with rare disgust over the unethical machinations of Democrat John Fetterman, who is, essentially, trying to cheat his way to a victory in the crucial Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race.
Maybe what aroused the Post’s dormant sense of ethics was Fetterman’s absurd pandering to the pro-abortion crown in a 9/11 campaign rally—kind of appropriate, since 9/11 was about taking innocent lives just like abortion is—in which he shouted, “My name is John FetterWoman!” to a cheering crowd of idiots. Fetterman reiterated his support for abortion until birth, and pledged that he would vote to codify Roe v. Wade, which makes no sense since Roe outlawed most abortions after the first trimester.
“Women are the reason we can win. Let me say that again: Women are the reason we win.” Fetterman told the crowd. “Don’t piss women off!”
To quote Olson Johnson in “Blazing Saddles,” “Now who can argue with that?”Fetterman then called his opponent, Mehmet Oz, “a pro-life extremist.” Emanuel Kant would say that it is impossible to be a pro-human life extremist, since regarding human life as paramount is what he called “ethical.”
“Oz believes abortion is murder… No exceptions: rape or incest… If every abortion is a murder, that means Dr. Oz considers every woman who had to choose abortion is a killer,” Fetterman said. Do I really have to unpack that legal and rhetorical nonsense for the non-stroke sufferers (like Fetterman) out there? If a fetus is a human life, how that fetus came to exist doesn’t change its right to live one iota: citing the “rape and incest” argument is signature significance for an ethics dolt on either side of the abortion argument. Of course every woman who chooses an abortion is a killer, as abortion is killing—the question is whether she’s a legal killer, in which case she’s not a “murderer.” And if she has no choice but to kill (as with self-defense), that can’t be murder…but it’s also not a choice. Fetterman’s is the argument of a 12-year-old. Is that the kind of mind that belongs in the U.S. Senate?
But I digress. Speaking of minds, the Post notes,
- “The race might well determine which party controls the Senate, and voters would benefit from seeing the two candidates exchange ideas and test each other. Mr. Fetterman has seemingly been reluctant to commit to firm debate dates, and that troubling stance has raised questions about whether he, still recovering from a serious stroke, is fit to serve in the Senate.”
Gee, ya think?
- “Mr. Oz has pressed for five debates, but Mr. Fetterman dodged and ducked before tentatively agreeing last week to one but not until “sometime in the middle to end of October.” That’s well after Sept. 19, when voters can start casting mail-in ballots, and it’s short of the two debates that had been the standard during recent competitive Senate contests in Pennsylvania.”
Digressing again, but I can’t let that pass: the Post is pointing out what is undemocratic and irresponsible about early voting, which encourages mindless, party-line ballots so incompetent candidates like Fetterman can get elected. Democrats claim that this is “protecting democracy;” in fact, the practice is designed to cripple it.
- “Since returning to the campaign trail, Mr. Fetterman has been halting in his performances. He stammers, appears confused and keeps his remarks short. He has held no news conferences. Mr. Fetterman acknowledges his difficulties with auditory processing, which make it hard for him to respond quickly to what he’s hearing. He receives speech therapy — and we wish him a speedy, full recovery — but the lingering, unanswered questions about his health, underscored by his hesitation to debate, are unsettling.”
Ha. What questions? A man who has difficulties with auditory processing should not be running for the Senate, much less be in the Senate. This isn’t hard.
- “The Fetterman campaign squandered credibility by concealing from the public for two days after his stroke that he had been hospitalized. It waited weeks longer to reveal a more complete picture of his medical history, including that he had been diagnosed in 2017 with cardiomyopathy. Mr. Fetterman had a pacemaker with a defibrillator implanted after the stroke. The campaign’s response to questions about Mr. Fetterman’s health is to point to a doctor’s note, released more than 14 weeks ago, which said “he should be able to campaign and serve in the U.S. Senate without a problem” if he takes his medications and exercises.”
“What’s going on here?” It’s obvious, isn’t it? Pennsylvania Democrats are attempting to lie, fake, deceive, stall and cheat their way to a victory, relying on lazy, apathetic, knee-jerk and none-too-bright voters.
You know: democracy!
Ethics Alarms 
“The race might well determine which party controls the Senate, and voters would benefit from seeing the two candidates exchange ideas and test each other. Mr. Fetterman has seemingly been reluctant to commit to firm debate dates, and that troubling stance has raised questions about whether he, still recovering from a serious stroke, is fit to serve in the Senate.”
Hmf. I wonder if they are troubled about the Arizona Democrat gubernatorial nominee Kati Hobbs refusal to debate her opponent, Kari Lake? Probably not. It’s only for governor of a mid-sized state at the forefront of our border with Mexico.
Digressing again, but I can’t let that pass: the Post is pointing out what is undemocratic and irresponsible about early voting, which encourages mindless, party-line ballots so incompetent candidates like Fetterman can get elected. Democrats claim that this is “protecting democracy;” in fact, the practice is designed to cripple it.
Early voting should begin seven days before the election at most. Fetterman’s position is untenable, stupid, transparently unethical and unfair. It is unworthy of consideration. Oz may as well tell him to piss off.
Since returning to the campaign trail, Mr. Fetterman has been halting in his performances. He stammers, appears confused and keeps his remarks short. He has held no news conferences.”
Sounds vaguely like how you would describe a person who is unfit for office.
The campaign’s response to questions about Mr. Fetterman’s health is to point to a doctor’s note, released more than 14 weeks ago, which said “he should be able to campaign and serve in the U.S. Senate without a problem” if he takes his medications and exercises.
Can we get a second opinion? Asking for a friend…
“Early voting should begin seven days before the election at most.”
I disagree with this. I do not want to risk some scandal emerging the night before the election and I’ve already cast my vote.
I already believe parties hold on to unflattering information for as long as they can until the election is over so I can certainly see them trying to rein in the bad news until after the mail-in deadline has arrived.
I respect that opinion, but I don’t agree. Early voting is a thing now. I’d rather manage it favorably than rail against it.
How can you manage it fairly? What’s wrong with it is that it encourages irresponsible voting on incomplete information.
Isn’t “it’s a thing now’ the same as “Everybody does it”?
I believe his position is that you can’t put the genie back into the bottle once it’s opened. I don’t know if that counts as a rationalization or not, but I understand his thinking there. Once the precedent has been set, it’s hard to convince people that it shouldn’t continue.
Yet the law does that regularly and appropriately, constantly and necessarily.
No. It means that that’s what people want, and judging by what I see, they are going to have it. And if your information is incomplete a week before the election, well, that’s on you.
Who are you really?
People want it? People would vote to abolish the First Amendment! How is it “on you” if your opponents manages to cover up his paid work for, say, China, Iran or Satan until the final weeks of the campaign?
Citizenship is a duty, and so is responsible voting. Just because so many slugs don’t give enough of a damn to go to the polls after all possible data is in doesn’t justify enabling them. If I had voted early in 2016, I wouldn’t have known about Hillary’s cheating in CNN’s town halls. I would have voted for her, and would be awash with shame for the rest of my life.
Okay, I feel like we may be across purposes, so I’ll make sure I’m clear.
1. My position was I was okay voting within 7 days before of election day (inclusive), not weeks;
2. Early voting is a fact in a number of states. That’s what I mean when I say people want it. Statutes permitting it have been enacted by the legislatures and signed by the governor. I know that the Constitution is ambiguous about that and the courts have not resolved a case on the issue that is currently extant, so we’ll have to see if it passes legal muster at some point in the future.
3. I am convinced, and maybe you aren’t, that I will know all I need to know about a candidate well before 7 days prior to their election. Could something possibly come up to affect my vote in the last 7 days? I can’t say absolutely not, but I consider it to be an acceptable risk.
4. I agree that citizenship is a duty, and so is responsible voting. I am therefore okay with people having a (very) few days prior to election day to cast their vote. I don’t think that is irresponsible or a neglect of duty.
5. I think all voting should be in person, other than cases where the voter is unavoidably absent, incapacitated, unable to travel to the polls, or otherwise enfeebled to the point they can’t get there timely. Then, they should receive an absentee ballot which should receive enhanced scrutiny.
6. The Constitution does not forbid early voting, but I would oppose anything other than 7 days before the election, regardless of what it is ultimately determined to say.
I am curious what you think the ethical course would be on this hypothetical.
A person has an accident and hurts their shoulder. The doctor arranged for reparative surgery and the date that they schedule it for is
the day before voting day. The pain meds are to be taken religiously for a week and you know you can’t think until you are off the meds because you’ve had to take them for your knee surgery a decade ago and that was one of the lessons learned. Analyzing new data on political candidates is not something your brain can handle on the meds, assuming you are released from the hospital in time to vote.
What is the ethical course of action? Voting a little early with the best data you can have, voting totally stoned, or not voting at all?
That’s easy: voting early. See: The Ethics Incompleteness Principle. There are always exceptions to any ethical position.
Fair enough, but how do you allow the incompleteness principle for those that need it while filtering out those who don’t? Where can you draw the line? What determines the necessity of exemptions verses the ethical call of voting as well informed as possible? Ridding society of early voting disenfranchises some who need that but keeping it allows for lazy folk to mark D’s or R’s all the way down.
Planned surgery seems easy, but what about COVID moving a once in a lifetime vacation, planned years in advance, over the voting day? What about of it is part of the affordable life of travel that you scrimped and saved for years until you retired that you now need to use before you get too old? What about a fear of being in a car in a blizzard (and knowing that dollars to donuts, a blizzard in voting day is the safer bet)? What about hedging bets because it is flu season and your kids always get sick around that time and since COVID, you know that it’ll be hard to get to the polls with sick kids that you had to keep home from school? What about a true phobia of crowds or crippling social anxiety? And on and on.
I agree with some of those reasons, but disagree with others. But how do we, as a society, determine what is a good reason? I see advance voting as the lesser of two evils with no good solution. I never considered it much until my Dad (150 on the CD scale) used it (-10) because his several thousand dollar non-refundable travel plans to the Carribean were moved multiple times since summer 2020 and finally settled onto this upcoming voting day by the company he got them through because of COVID restrictions. I admit my bias, but see no good way to encourage intelligent voting without discouraging it too.
How would you make this ethically incomplete dilemma work for the US?
That’s the difference between morality, which just provides rigid rules that require no nuance or analysis at all, and ethics, which always requires reasoning and balancing, as well as constant adjustments. Morality is easy, ethics is hard.
Agreed on Fetterman. But the alternative is a snake-oil salesman with no political experience. And I thought my upcoming gubernatorial choice between Greg Abbott and Beto O’Rourke was a lose/lose…
Oh, I have no tolerance for Dr. Oz. A terrible candidate.
PA voters have a binary choice between a surgeon with a TV persona some find unappealing and a known (as clearly as any ever was) disaster. btw sound familiar?
So who do you pick? Doesn’t seem hard, and it doesn’t seem sensible to diss the non-disaster.
Can you explain Bobby O’Roarke? That is one terrible candidate but I see SUVs and tall building houses with “Bobby” signs emblazened on them and I simply can’t figure it out.
jvb
Nobody can explain Robert Francis O’Rourke. He’s inexplicable. He has virtually no actual charisma, intelligence, wit, or even political savvy, and isn’t even particularly handsome, funny, or otherwise appealing in some way. He’s just some dude who really, really wants to be elected to something (anything, really) very badly. And like a bad case of jock itch, he just won’t go away. For some reason, Democrats in Texas seem to think – despite ample evidence to the contrary – that this is a winning combination. Truly one of the great mysteries of life.
The good news is that after he loses to Abbott, he’ll probably disappear from public life. The bad news is, he’ll be back in 2024 running for state comptroller or president of his wife’s book club or something.
I firmly believe in a “voting day” not a voting season. I do, however, support changing the voting day to a Saturday rather than Tuesday to give workers the opportunity to vote or extend the voting hours to alter than 7 PM.
As for Mr. Fedderman’s chance of being elected despite his disarticulation, just look toward the district that elected AOC. The ability to articulate coherent sentences is not of great import to the electorate