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 He should have withdrawn when he had the stroke and his party should have replaced him, but in an excess of arrogance and hubris, both were certain that he could prevail against the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.
Ethics Alarms 