I don’t watch Tucker Carlson, but I literally landed on Fox News for three minutes last night to hear the pundit note that the mainstream media was now dedicated to making the public disbelieve what it could see with its eyes and hear with its ears. “When that succeeds, the result is slavery,’ he concluded. This is nothing but warmed-over Orwell, but it is right nonetheless. I assume what prompted Carlson’s observation was the frenzied reaction of most (though not all) of the biased news media and Democrats to John Fetterman’s horrific performance in his debate against GOP Senate candidate Mehmet Oz.

Yoo’s Rationalization, or “It isn’t what it is” was a late addition to the Rationalization List, but it has been the Rationalization of the Year each year at least since 2019. 2022, however, has broken all records. As I so sagely predicted months ago when it was obvious (or should have been) that Democrats would be facing an electoral backlash this November, they and their news media are engaging in more and more transparently dishonest and misleading rhetoric, and much of it is of the Yoo variety. Unable to prevail by the superiority of their policies and measurable positive results, the panicked Left is now weaponizing denial as well as one rationalization after another. Fetterman’s ugly performance, with his loss being seen as likely leading to GOP control of the Senate, has kicked this unethical strategy into a new gear.

Let’s begin with reality. Fetterman has refused to release his medical records, and has not recovered sufficiently from a May stroke to be able to speak clearly, form sentences, and understand what is being said to him without technological assistance, meaning that he wouldn’t be able to function in the corridor discussions and informal meetings that are so central to the operation of the Senate. He should have withdrawn when he had the stroke and his party should have replaced him, but in an excess of arrogance and hubris, both were certain that he could prevail against the Trump-endorsed Oz, who was seen as weak alternative. (And he is). Nobody apparently felt that the citizens of Pennsylvania deserved a fully capable representative in the Senate—all that mattered is that Fetterman would be a reliable Far Left vote. The news media scrupulously downplayed the degree of Fetterman’s problems (“Democrats Must Win” is the mission) until NBC reporter Dasha Burns, after having significant contact with Fetterman in October, concluded that Fetterman’s impairments were so significant that even assistive technology didn’t help. She noted that “it wasn’t clear he was understanding our conversation.”

She was immediately attacked by journalists and party loyalists for putting her assessment of the facts above ideological loyalty….you know, what used to be called “journalism.” Then the debate made it clear that Burns was correct. What should have happened after the debacle was for all journalists to report that Fetterman clearly was not fit to serve in the Senate at this point, that voters must decide if they want to gamble that he will recover sufficiently to do the job if elected, and that to that end, his release of his medical records is paramount. Voters, regardless of their political affiliations, ought to be in agreement.

But no.

Here is a sample of what many in the news media and punditry cabal are attempting to pull off: a massive, unethical Jumbo. I posted this video in the last post, but for reference and convenience, here it is again:

You can also watch the whole debate here. Keep these in mind as you assess the news media and its pundits’ analysis:

• After NBC News dared to published a piece on the debate and says that Democrats are “on edge” quoting a “senior Senate D aide” as saying, “It was startling. I really question the judgment that he continued with this race.” after watching it. Keith Olbermann tweeted that “The descent of
  @nbcnews into full irresponsible shitshow is complete. Anonymous sources for a story pushing Republican talking points.” Right. Fetterman giving the worst debate performance in memory is just a “Republican talking point.” Ethics verdict: Gaslighting.
• On MSNBC, Rebecca Traister claimed that Fetterman gave “very fluent and direct response[s]” to moderators’ questions and she praised her “really, really strong comebacks” to his opponent. Ethics verdict: Confirmation bias for the ages, or outright lying.
• New York Times editor Sheryl Gay Stolberg:  “Everyone knew what he meant.” Ethics verdict: Hypocrisy and double standards. Everybody knew what Donald Trump meant most of the time, but that never stopped the Times from taking his words literally and calling them lies.
•  The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board called workmanlike performance “workmanlike.” He “had zingers” and gave “mostly direct, thoughtful answers.”  “He struggled, more than many were comfortable with,” one editor wrote, “But that says more about us, than him.” Ethics verdict: Bias makes you stupid.
  
• The View’s second dumbest panelist, Sunny Hostin, said, “It takes real bravery to allow people to see your weakness, right? And we know that Fetterman’s cognitive abilities have not been compromised.” Ethics verdict: Pure partisan disinformation. If Fetterman bravely wanted people to “see his eakness,” he would release his medical records. And how would she or anyone “know” his cognitive abilities aren’t compromised based on that debate. “It isn’t what it is.”
  
• New Yorker editor and author Jessica Winter: “Doing a nationally televised debate while recovering from a debilitating stroke is metal. The fact that he went up and did it is a testament in Fetterman’s favor, and not a burden upon you, the viewer, because you’re ‘embarrassed’ or whatever.” Ethics verdict: Blatant goalpost-shifting. This is a theme of the gaslighters” Fetterman won the debate by just showing up. But running for an important national office isn’t a Hemingway novel.

That, ironically, is a Democrat talking point. Fetterman’s campaign manager tweeted, “So proud of @JohnFetterman who stood up tonight to do something incredibly hard under the best of circumstances, but did it only 5 months into his recovery. What we saw was a brave fighter going to bat for every Pennsylvanian who’s been knocked down and tried to get back up.” Fetterman then used those words, “being knocked down and got back up,” in his appearances yesterday. That’s what the debate was about! Not clarifying positions or showing his ability, just showing up!

• The reliably awful NYT pundit Kara Swisher, who attacked Burns by saying that Fetterman was as coherent as anyone, tried this flagrant: deflection: “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.” Ethics verdict: Intellectual dishonesty. A disability is relevant when it genuinely interferes with the ability of an individual to perform a job.

This is yet another theme of the denials. On MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell brought on Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who had a minor stroke this year that didn’t impair his speach or comprehension at all. The theory pushed by Van Hollen and O’Donnell was that criticism of Fetterman was just bigotry, and one stroke victim is as able as another. MSNBC contributor and progressive podcaster Liz Plank tweeted, “when your side is so bad you have to rely on ableism to win.”

• A reporter at the White House press session tried another tact, a leading question for Biden’s paid liar, Karine Jean-Pierre:  “Just curious if the president feels that the Lieutenant Governor’s decision to participate in that debate was an important moment in terms of welcoming people who have disabilities…” Amusingly, she answered in Fettermanese:  “The president is very impressive by his courage.” Ethics verdict: Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!
  
• Finally, here’s one from journalist David Sirota, evoking many rationalizations, like The Management Shrug, or “Don’t sweat the small stuff!”….The Miscreant’s Mulligan or “Give him/her/them/me a break!”…The Apathy Defense, or “Nobody Cares”…The Golden Rule Mutation, or “I’m all right with it!” and others, all while maintaining that being a Senator is so easy that it shouldn’t matter if one is a little bit brain-damaged:

 

Well, there is much more, but you must be getting as bored with these as I am. The question is, will the concerted effort to confuse and deceive the public work? There is no question that the effort itself is unethical and totalitarian in intent.