The screenshot below is taken from The Conservative Treehouse:
The screenshot below is taken from The Conservative Treehouse:
The Democrats cheered John Fetterman’s return to the Senate after his two-month absence. Senator Fetterman checked into the hospital for depression. He is now returning to work. I appreciate his returning to work–he is supposed to represent the people of Pennsylvania, and he can’t do that unless he shows up. However, I truly question his judgement in showing up to the Senate in a hoodie and shorts. I am not the fashion police, but that just seems disrespectful to me.
This is the picture:
I guess I am old-fashioned, but I think this is totally inappropriate dress for the Senate.
On Tuesday, Yahoo News posted an article about Senator Fetterman’s return. Skip the article, and read the comments. I am not the only one offended by the lack of respect for the Senate shown by the way the Senator is dressed.
On Wednesday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article analyzing Tuesday’s election. The article notes that there is a distinction between the Republicans view voting and the way the Democrats view voting. The Republicans emphasize votes; the Democrats emphasize ballots.
The article notes:
As the political discussion centers on the 2022 wins and losses from the midterm election, one thing that stands out in similarity to the 2020 general election is the difference between ballots and votes. It appears in some states this is the ‘new normal.’
Where votes were the focus, the Biden administration suffered losses. Where ballots were the focus, the Biden administration won.
Perhaps the two states most reflective of ‘ballots’ being more important than ‘votes’ are Michigan and Pennsylvania. Despite negative polling and public opinion toward two specific candidates in those states, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman achieved victories.
Whitmer and Fetterman were not campaigning for votes, that is old school. Instead, the machinery behind both candidates focused on the modern path. The Democrat machines in both states focused on ballot collection and ignored the irrelevant votes as cast.
Since the advent of ballot centric focus through mail-in and collection drop-off processes, votes have become increasingly less valuable amid the organizers who wish to control election outcomes. As a direct and specific result, ballot collection has become the key to Democrat party success.
The effort to attain votes for candidates is less important than the strategy of collecting ballots.
It should be emphasized; these are two distinctly different election systems.
The system of ballot distribution and collection is far more susceptible to control than the traditional system of votes cast at precincts.
A vote cannot be cast by a person who is no longer alive, or no longer lives in the area. However, a ballot can be sent, completed and returned regardless of the status of the initially attributed and/or registered individual.
While ballots and votes originate in two totally different processes, the end result of both “ballots” and “votes,” weighing on the presented election outcome, is identical.
While initially the ballot form of election control was tested in Deep Blue states, through the process of mail-in returns under the guise and justification of “expanding democracy,” a useful tool for those who are vested in the distinction, I think we are now starting to see what happens on a national level when the process is expanded.
The article concludes:
Campaigning, advertising, promoting, debating, hand-shaking, crowd attendance and venues for rallies, along with physically meeting people and convincing them of your worth, are only important if you are trying to win votes. Fortunately for Democrats, modern electioneering via ballot collection does not require these arcane efforts. So, in the larger picture of what you now see in elections, Democrats have stopped wasting time doing them.
Republicans are running around trying to convince people and win votes. Meanwhile, who needs voters? Democrats have skipped all of that old fashioned stuff and modified all of their electioneering systems to quietly and efficiently collect ballots. Yesterday you saw the outcome.
Haven’t you noticed?
It really is that simple.
Obviously election fraud is much easier when counting ballots than when counting votes. I think it’s time to go back to what we used to do–vote on one day and mail-in ballots for military and those who truly cannot make it to the polls.
There are numerous videos showing snippets of John Fetterman’s debate performance on Tuesday night. I am not posting them here because I think they are sad. You can find a lot of them on YouTube. The clips of the debate I have seen show a man struggling to compose coherent sentences; he did not sound like a man who would be successful as a Senator.
On Thursday, Fox News reported the following:
Democrats are privately “panicking” over Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman’s debate performance Tuesday night and expressing regret over his decision to debate Republican opponent Dr. Mehmet Oz, according to NBC.
The Democrat’s lingering health problems due to a stroke he suffered in May resulted in a debate performance that some said was “painful to watch.” Some Democrats felt Fetterman hadn’t been transparent about the degree of his speaking difficulties and criticized his campaign for agreeing to the one and only debate.
“[F]ellow Democrats are second-guessing his decision to appear on stage five months after a stroke — and some question whether he should have remained on the ballot at all,” the NBC article began.
The article concludes:
Terry Madonna, a longtime Pennsylvania pollster, didn’t mince words when describing the debate.
Describing the backlash, Madonna said, “[T]he fact of the matter is his performance was obviously very questionable and it’s just dominated the news.”
He added that he’s never seen a debate performance “this bad,” the NBC article read.
Fetterman’s debate drew strong reaction on the left. Some pointed the finger at his campaign, while others claimed his critics were “ableist.”
It’s not ableist to question whether a candidate can do the job he is running for. If you owned a company, after seeing the debate, who position would you hire John Fetterman for?
On Friday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. On Tuesday, NBC News aired an interview with Mr. Fetterman, who is currently the Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania. Dasha Burns conducted the interview and mentioned that she felt that Mr. Fetterman had difficulty communicating during the small talk before the interview. Her comments were not well received by others in the liberal media. However, her comments are extremely relevant.
The Washington Examiner reports:
Republicans have put up (and even elected) a bevy of awful federal candidates this year and in the recent past, but none of them are any more unfit for office than Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.
With all due sympathy for a man recovering from a stroke, it must be said: Fetterman was a ludicrous candidate even before his stroke, and now he shouldn’t even be in the race. Just a few weeks after his May 13 stroke, it should have been evident that his health was not adequate for one of the top jobs of public service in the world. Only 100 people, out of some 330 million, are given the burden and privilege of being senators. It’s an office that performs a vital function; it’s not a merit badge and shouldn’t be a rehabilitation center.
The article concludes:
Voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere need to take their own responsibilities more seriously. Getting public policy right really does take knowledge, understanding, and, usually, experience. Voters who want to blow off steam, follow cultural cues (which can be easy to fake, by the way), and “send messages,” rather than hiring/electing people with relevant skills and knowledge (not to mention cognition), are elevating to high office people who just can’t do their jobs well.
This isn’t a call for rule by a self-selected elite of supposed experts, but it is an insistence that there is a level of competence below which voters shouldn’t accept a candidate. Fetterman has done absolutely nothing, even when healthy, to show the right abilities or wisdom to be a good senator. Now that he has been victimized by bad health, he shouldn’t be anywhere near that office.
Unless Pennsylvania Democrats want to try the same sort of exotic candidate switch that Georgia Republicans should but won’t do, Fetterman will remain on the ballot. The box by his name, though, certainly should not be checked.
I am not in total agreement with the last statement, but I do believe that Mr. Fetterman needs to go home and recover from the stoke he suffered. He does not belong in Congress. But I do wonder–if he is elected and says that he cannot serve, does Governor Wolf, a Democrat, get to appoint his replacement?
On Sunday The Western Journal posted an article about former Philadelphia Deputy Mayor Tom Knox.
The article reports:
A Philadelphia Democrat is swinging for a Republican in a red-hot Senate election.
Former Philadelphia Deputy Mayor Tom Knox endorsed Mehmet Oz on Friday, eschewing John Fetterman, his party’s nominee for the United States Senate.
Knox, who says he’s a “lifelong Democrat,” explained why he had decided to back Oz in a statement obtained by Townhall on Friday.
“I have met with John Fetterman, and I personally like him,” Knox explained.
“But I am sad to say, as a resident of Philadelphia, that our city has become increasingly dangerous, and John Fetterman’s policies on crime will make things much worse.”
Philadelphia broke the city’s 30-year homicide record in 2021.
Gun violence in the Democrat-dominated city has reached a point where the city’s cemetery workers have been unable to dig enough graves for the victims of shootings at times.
Knox pointed to what he sees as Fetterman’s soft-on-crime policies in his statement.
“His push as lieutenant governor to release more dangerous criminals — after we have already seen a gruesome increase in violent crime — and promote heroin injection sites in our neighborhoods are radical ideas that would make our streets less safe,” Knox said of the current Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor.
I am not going to make a prediction about this election. Pennsylvania is not known for its high degree of election integrity, and John Fetterman is popular in the state. However, when people go to vote, they need to consider the impact their vote will have on their personal safety. That was not as important an issue in the past as it is now, but currently it is one of the most important issues.