The Many Flavors of Fetterman Cope

Democrats grapple with a debate disaster in Pennsylvania.

By
200
John Fetterman. (Photo by Kriston Jae Bethel/AFP/Getty Images.)

Normally the challenge in writing about a Senate debate is taking care to cover the key exchanges and shoehorning them into a contrived, too-pat “who won, who lost” narrative.

The challenge in writing about Tuesday night’s Pennsylvania Senate debate between John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz is trying to convey just how pitifully Fetterman struggled to communicate as he recovers from a stroke.

No words will do it justice. The best I can do is to say that Herschel Walker might not be the least coherent member of the Senate next year after all.

It was so bad that Joe Scarborough’s show, which airs on liberal America’s favorite cable-news network, felt obliged to air a lowlight reel the morning after.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
200
By
Comments (200)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I wish Lamb had won that primary

    Collapse
  2. Kelly Windsor

    Vickiethesmith


    “No, they can’t because those are the only two options. Come up with any explanation you want, courage, delusion, miscalculation, honesty, miscommunication, mistake, no matter what, it will fall into one of those two categories.

    That’s because, no matter how you slice this, if you wanted the Democrats to win the race, putting that man on a debate stage was a stupid decision. That is proved by the fallout, even if he should miraculously win.

    If they weren’t making a stupid decision, then they did it on purpose to wreck the Democrats’ chances, which would make this malpractice.”

    So, the democrats, Fetterman, his family, his supporters…
    They decided to take on this debate because (A) they WANTED to wreck the democrats chances
    Or
    (B) their was malpractice involved.

    This retort is the best example of “ableism” I’ve read so far. And I don’t even usually buy into that silly rhetoric.

    Thank you.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Vickithesmith

      >They decided to take on this debate because (A) they WANTED to wreck the democrats chances
      Or (B) their was malpractice involved.

      ....No, those two choices are the same. If Democrats want to wreck the Democrats' chances, then they are practicing political malpractice.

      Either they wanted him to win or they didn't. If they did, the decision was stupid. If they didn't, it was malpractice. That is just logic.

      Calling my remark abelism is just .... sigh. Let's just say if the author wanted someone to brilliantly illustrate his point, he should be delighted.

      Collapse
      1. Kelly Windsor

        Lovely.
        I LOVE this.

        It’s delightful. Truly.
        Thank you.

        Collapse
  3. Nickson

    For the first time since you joined, Nick, I didn’t bother reading the article after seeing the headline. Like it or not, Fetterman is still going to win. No copium. Just … available choices.

    Nickson in Bucks Co, PA

    PS. If I’m wrong (and I’m never wrong, lol:)), The Dispatch wins! I promise not to renew my subscription.

    Collapse
    1. Kelly Windsor

      Damn…

      I wish I hadn’t read it.
      Live and learn

      Collapse
  4. Kelly Windsor

    Richard Maxton

    “Then you have to wonder why his campaign agreed to the debate.

    Stupidity or political malpractice.”

    Those are the only two options you came up? You really think that’s what they were deciding between? Could you expand your thinking slightly? For a second?
    Just try.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Vickithesmith

      No, they can’t because those are the only two options. Come up with any explanation you want, courage, delusion, miscalculation, honesty, miscommunication, mistake, no matter what, it will fall into one of those two categories.

      That’s because, no matter how you slice this, if you wanted the Democrats to win the race, putting that man on a debate stage was a stupid decision. That is proved by the fallout, even if he should miraculously win.

      If they weren’t making a stupid decision, then they did it on purpose to wreck the Democrats’ chances, which would make this malpractice.

      Collapse
  5. Kelly Windsor

    DTruitt


    “That's not how most women see it. In the real world, not the Dem fantasy politics world.”

    You think you’re the voice of WOMEN? Are you a woman? You think women don’t care about having autonomy over their own bodies? You think women want men, strangers, to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies????

    WE SHALL SEE….

    Collapse
  6. Kelly Windsor

    Neither party has ever stopped spending money.

    Collapse
  7. Kelly Windsor

    Do some research on how many cops are lawbreakers…
    Not locked up.
    While the taxpayer pays for their crimes.

    Give me a break.
    A badge doesn’t make somebody a “good guy”. Not even remotely.

    Collapse
  8. Kelly Windsor

    Support all cops, even the corrupt cops… so many corrupt cops. That’s a waste of money and does NOT stop crime, it just keeps it from YOUR doorstep… maybe.

    Collapse
  9. Bradgreenwald

    Since a given senator is not allowed to vote on anything not approved by party leadership (on either side) why do the capabilities of the individual matter? Our congress is so broken it is hard to care about anything other than defending from the other side's worst policies. What a horrible place to be as a country

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Devin H

      Well, if that's what you believe, if you're really that cynical and choose to vote that way, it definitely isn't pointing the country in the direction you want it to go.

      Collapse
      1. Bradgreenwald

        You misunderstood me a bit, if the choice is between two actors who are both acting in the way I describe, I can not really think of a reason to vote for the one who would blindly follow the instructions of a party leadership I disagree with. The only real option is to not vote at all, but I do not see how that helps either.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Devin H

          I try to vote a write-in or third party, but I understand the predicament you’re in. Thanks for the reply!

          Collapse
    2. Acre00

      For a while, it was said that Manchin was the most powerful man in the Senate. In a closely divided chamber, every vote counts and if your vote is the one needed for the bill to pass or nomination to be approved you get to name your price.

      Collapse
      1. Bradgreenwald

        It is VERY interesting to me that the attractions of staying "on team" seem to overwhelm the attractions of individual aspirations in so many cases. Manchin was a very special case as his voters would back him since he represents a much more conservative state than the average D. Not often replicated-- we will see how Sinema does in her reelection campaign.

        Collapse
        1. Acre00

          Manchin is an extreme example but not a unique one. The CPC did the same on the left in the house. I doubt Fetterman would have been pushing legislation to the right, and as such I don't think he would have had to worry about being primaried from the left. And he wouldn't need to actually vote against something if he didn't want to. Manchin went to the extreme to get exactly what he wanted, but one doesn't need to take on the whole party apparatus to shape legislation to a lesser degree.

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Rob Smith

      I have argued elsewhere that candidates like Hershel Walker will sponsor no legislation, negotiate no compromises nor contribute anything to the Senate other than to vote as instructed by Mitch McConnel. It would be less costly and just as effective to send a hamster in a cage to the Senate and give its voting proxy to McConnel. We'd get the same effect for the cost of sunflower seeds and cedar shavings.

      Collapse
      1. David R

        As long as he votes as instructed by Mitch instead of by Donald, that'd be fine. But I suspect the latter.

        Collapse
      2. Bradgreenwald

        yep. not exactly what the founders designed :-(

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Connie

    Fetterman is not a wise man. If he was, he would recognize his limitations. It’s sad the man had a stroke, but he should be able to accept the fact he is not well enough to be elected to the Senate. It appears he is incapable of doing the job. He’s not being honest with himself. His campaign is not being honest with him.

    Part dogged determination, but mostly naked political ambition.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      “Part dogged determination, but mostly naked political ambition.”

      That would make him fit in with 99 other US Senators.

      Collapse
Load More