GOP: Character Counts Isn't Just a Slogan

In case anyone needed a reminder that the conservative movement is both un-self-aware and intellectually bankrupt, let me commend the following passage from a Washington Times story on Senator John Fetterman's continuing health issues:

Image captured from video by United States Senate, via Wikipedia, public domain.

People get the government they deserve, and in the case of Pennsylvanians, they chose Mr. Fetterman over his highly successful, patently brilliant, articulate opponent [(!) --ed ] largely because he had lived most of his life in New Jersey. Mehmet Oz lost an election. The people of Pennsylvania lost their representation and perhaps even their ability to choose who stands for them in the Senate. [bold added]

How many times have you heard a conservative say something like character counts when discussing a Democrat?

Isn't that the whole point of the so-called culture wars -- that the conservatives are the good guys, or at least the sane guys?

I oppose the whole idea that religion is a sound basis for morality, but many people who are value-oriented, normal, and at least want to be good think it is, and the GOP uses religion to pitch itself to them for that very reason.

And so here we have a conservative paper I have some respect for scolding the voters in Pennsylvania for not choosing Mehmet Oz over Fetterman -- despite the former being "highly successful, patently brilliant, articulate opponent" -- and yet failing to mention the fact that Oz is a quack.

On what did Oz build his "success?" And when one considers that foundation, wouldn't that raise the possibility that his intellect and smoothness might be something to watch out for -- rather than an asset -- if he is put into a position of power?

At least Fetterman, as a leftist, effectively admits he's out to pick our pockets.

Donald Trump -- regarded by too many as the leader of the Republican Party -- backed that snake-oil salesman and helped bring about last fall's impossible "choice" between a loony leftist and a smooth telequack.

Since an election is basically a hiring process, it might be helpful to borrow an analogy from there. When a background check calls into question an otherwise outstanding candidate, shouldn't a hiring manager eliminate the candidate from the pool absent clear-cut evidence that the red flag is wrong?

Character counts is not just a handy motto to win votes in an election. It's true, and it matters to good people.

Rather than blame the poor people of Pennsylvania, perhaps the Washington Times might consider apologizing to them, and attack Donald Trump and his cronies instead.

-- CAV