John Fetterman outshines Dr. Oz.

October 26, 2022

          For those of you obsessing over the polls—and I hope that is none of you—let me give you a 60,000-foot overview: Anything can happen, all possibilities are open to us, and we have every reason to work harder than ever to affect the outcome of the election. For reasons known only to the advertising department of the NYTimes, that newspaper has gone to the dark side of late, featuring stories of cataclysm and apocalypse in an effort to “examine” issues facing America. It has also decided that Republicans will win in a red wave—which is what one of its “above the fold” articles in today’s NYTimes asserts. (I will not link to the article to avoid encouraging people to peek.) But immediately below that article is another by the NYTimes elections expert Nate Cohn (not Nate Silver) with the headline, “If these poll results keep up, anything could happen on election night.”

          There you have it: Even the determinedly pessimistic NYTimes is of two minds on the potential outcome of the election within two column inches on the front page of today’s edition of the Times. Balancing the “red wave” side of the ledger, readers have sent me a couple of dozen copies of Michael Moore’s op-ed in The Guardian predicting a “blue wave.”

          Here’s my point: Current polling is volatile, which tells us that it is useless. It fails to capture the moment. As I wrote over the weekend, I am not saying that we will win; I am saying we can win. Six months ago, everyone was predicting that the GOP would take control of the House by forty votes and the Senate by six votes. The fact that sober experts like Nate Cohn are saying “anything can happen” is HUGE progress. Keep it up! The key to our success is turnout. Encourage family, friends, and complete strangers to vote. When more people vote, democracy is the winner—which usually favors Democratic political fortunes.

More on voter intimidation in Arizona.

          One instance of voter intimidation is unacceptable and should be prosecuted aggressively by the DOJ. But as I noted yesterday, we must be careful not to dissuade people from voting by amplifying isolated acts of voter intimidation. After I wrote about the presence of armed “poll watchers” in Maricopa County, I heard from a resident of that county who agreed (and then some) with my comments yesterday. As background to the reader’s comments (quoted below), it is helpful to know that in 2020, nearly 89% of Arizonans voted early, and most by mail—which means that for most Arizonans, a mailbox is a ballot box. Here is the reader’s comment:

As you know, I’m in Arizona. Let me assure you that these poll watchers are not intimidating anyone. The remarkable stupidity of their acts lies in the fact that (for most Arizonans) every U.S. Mail blue collection box is also a “ballot dropbox” because mail ballots come with envelopes that are prepaid with postage. So, you can drop off mail ballots at any post office or blue mailbox.  These poll watchers are at four ballot drop boxes in Maricopa County. But there are nearly 1,000 US mailboxes in Maricopa County. These “Live Action Role Play” characters are doing no actual surveillance. They are just looking for news coverage, and they are getting it.  

          Another reader sent a note saying that her sister-in-law, who lives in a red state in the South reported that there were “poll watchers” like those in Arizona who were following some voters to their homes. The reader’s sister-in-law reported the poll watching to the police, who told everyone to go home—an unsatisfactory outcome. If Merrick Garland is sincere in his promise to protect the integrity of the election, the FBI should be investigating instances of voter intimidation at midterm polls—because those polling places are hosting a federal election. Indeed, the FBI voter suppression webpage contains the following statement:

          Help defend the right to vote by reporting any suspected instances of voter suppression to your local FBI field office or at tips.fbi.gov.

          Voter intimidation is wrong and illegal. Report it to poll workers, the local police, and the FBI. But don’t let isolated instances of voter intimidation prevent you from exercising your most important constitutional right.

House Democratic Progressive Caucus withdraws letter to Biden regarding Ukraine.

          Yesterday, I noted that the Democratic Progressive Caucus in the House had sent an “ill-conceived, ill-timed, callous” letter to Biden regarding US support for Ukraine. Although the letter was filled with expressions of support for Ukraine, it also suggested three actions that would undermine Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s illegal invasion. The letter suggested that Biden should (a) “pair” further aid to Ukraine with a requirement of “robust” diplomatic efforts to reach a settlement, (b) have America “engage directly” with Russia in settlement negotiations (without Ukraine’s direct participation), and (c) offer Russia relief from sanctions as part of settlement negotiations (that would presumably cede Ukrainian territory to Russia).

          Each of those suggestions is spectacularly bad standing alone. In combination, they are directionally similar to Neville Chamberlain’s abandonment of the Sudetenland to Hitler before WWII—i.e., they deny Ukraine’s right to self-determination and sovereignty in its existential battle with Russia. The backlash in the Democratic Party was beyond furious, especially because Nancy Pelosi is currently in Europe in a show of US support for Ukraine.

          Having embarrassed the Progressive Caucus and Nancy Pelosi with the initial letter, the Progressive Caucus Chair, Pramila Jayapal, issued a “clarification” of the first letter, reiterating the support of the Progressive Caucus for Ukraine. The “clarification” is here: Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Reaffirms Support for Ukraine, Clarifies Call for Diplomacy. The “clarification” re-published the link to the original letter without claiming that it was released in error.

          When the “clarification” of support for Ukraine failed to quell the political firestorm, Jayapal issued a third letter, which “withdrew” the first letter, claiming that the original letter “was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting.” If the original letter was released by mistake, that explanation should have been the first thing Jayapal said, rather than as an excuse after the “clarification” failed to satisfy Democratic critics.

          The only saving grace of the debacle is that it was handled so badly by the Progressive Caucus that they are viewed as incompetent and lacking credibility. Sadly, several promising leaders of the Democratic Party have tarnished their reputations by signing a letter that was offensive and wrong when it was initially drafted in June, just as it was when it was released on Monday.

          Despite knee-jerk criticism of the Progressive Caucus from many quarters, they have been reliable and responsible partners in Biden’s legislative achievements to date. The caucus needs to engage in serious introspection to understand how they could have made such a grievous error in judgment on such an important matter.  

Why does this feel like a “reward” for overruling Roe v. Wade?

          Justice Amy Coney Barret has secured a $2 million advance from Penguin Random House for a book that will reportedly discuss “how judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule.” Given the dissonance between the proposed topic and Justice Barrett’s religiously motivated ruling in Dobbs, it is possible that the book is intended to be satirical, but there is little evidence that Barrett has a sense of humor.

          So, the most reasonable explanations are that Justice Barrett (a) lacks self-awareness and any sense of shame, and (b) the shocking advance is an indirect “reward” for being the final vote necessary to overrule Roe v. Wade. To be fair, Barrett secured the $2 million advance for a book that can be summarized in a sentence fragment before she overruled Roe. To be fairer, there is little evidence that the German conglomerate that owns Penguin Random House has any interest in US politics—apart from monetizing controversy. A group of publishing professionals is calling on Penguin Random House to reconsider its deal with Barrett.

          I, for one, cannot wait not to read Justice Barrett’s explanation of how her deeply held faith did not influence her vote to impose Catholic dogma on 320 million Americans. Perhaps future confirmation hearings can ask nominees for the Supreme Court if they intend to accept an obscene advance for writing a book of judicial fairy tales. That will give nominees something else to lie about besides their respect for precedent.

Adidas drops “Ye” for antisemitic remarks—GOP does not.

          After a series of highly publicized antisemitic remarks, Adidas dropped its top brand spokesperson, Kanye West, who now calls himself Ye. See Axios, Adidas drops partnership with Ye amid outcry over antisemitic remarks. The only controversial aspect of Adidas’s decision to drop Ye is, “What took so long?” Sadly, the answer to that question is that Adidas was calculating the competing economic impacts of continuing with an antisemitic spokesperson versus dropping its most famous celebrity endorser. Better late than never, even if the motivation is financial rather than moral.

          But the Republican Party still has Ye in a full MAGA embrace. The GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee have kept the following tweet posted: “Kanye. Elon. Trump.” Jim Jordan and his GOP colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee have apparently decided that the antisemitic vote is more important to Republicans than the vote of every American who condemns antisemitism.

Concluding Thoughts.

          John Fetterman debated fake tv Doctor Oz in the race for US Senate in Pennsylvania. Fetterman held his own despite some lingering effects of a severe stroke he suffered over the summer. It is a sign of Fetterman’s courage and integrity that he agreed to debate Oz under such trying conditions. On the merits, Fetterman won the debate. In the cesspool of the Twitterverse, trolls and cynics focused only on Fetterman’s disability and declared that he is unfit for office, even going so far as to mock his speech and auditory issues. But even mainstream outlets like the NYTimes and Politico reported on the debate primarily as a test of Fetterman’s disability rather than as a contest between two radically competing visions for America. See, e.g., NYTimes, Fetterman, Showing Stroke Effects, Battles Oz in Hostile Senate Debate and Politico, Fetterman struggles during TV debate with Oz.

          In the contest of “fitness for office,” there is simply no comparison. Dr. Oz is a medical fraudster who used his tv celebrity to promote snake oil cures and antivaccination propaganda that likely sickened or killed thousands. Oz said he will vote for a twice-impeached, coup-plotting president who committed espionage and obstruction of justice and who admitted on audiotape to using his celebrity status to sexually assault women. During the debate, Oz said he would put “local politicians” in control of women’s reproductive choices. And yet, the crass, insensitive, vapid commentators skip over Oz’s “fitness” for office and tut-tut and tsk-tsk about whether Fetterman is “fit” for office because he is successfully overcoming the effects of stroke.

          What is the right bar for holding public office? Can you flirt with white supremacy? Can you support an insurrection? Can you be a sexual predator? Can you support taking away women’s rights? Can you be a quack doctor who regularly scammed his audience for years? Are any of those qualities worse than a speech disorder caused by a stroke?

          The truth is that critics of Fetterman’s performance reveal much more about themselves—and our society’s deep discomfort with and ignorance about disability—than they do about John Fetterman himself.

          There is no other way to say it: The media is discriminating against Fetterman because of a physical disability and is unwilling to focus on substance. They see Fetterman as a stroke victim, not as a person whose intellect, values, and ideas outshine Oz at every level. Shame on them. I hope you will join me in letting your favorite media outlet know how you feel about reducing Fetterman to his disability rather than recognizing that he—like tens of millions of Americans—is not defined by his disability.

          Three weeks ago, I moderated a Zoom interview / fundraiser with John Fetterman and The Senate Circle. You can still donate to Fetterman’s victory fund PAC here: Fetterman Victory Fund. Fetterman is in a statistical tie with Oz. As with other races (Tim Ryan, Cheri Beasley, Mandela Barnes), we must contest every winnable race if we want to maintain or expand our control of the Senate. Let’s reward Fetterman’s courage and give him a fighting chance to defeat a candidate bought and paid for by MAGA.

          Talk to you tomorrow!