Fetterman called to ‘step aside' by Philadelphia Inquirer if disengaged or mental health issues too severe
The Philadelphia Inquirer called out Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., in an editorial on Sunday, demanding the senator "perform his job" or step aside, amid reports of concern about his mental health.
"Being an elected official comes with public scrutiny. If Fetterman can't handle the attention or perform his job, then in the best interest of the country and the nearly 13 million residents of Pennsylvania he represents, he should step aside," the Inquirer's editorial board wrote.
"Being a U.S. senator is a serious job that requires full-time engagement," the editorial board continued. "If Fetterman wants to continue to serve, then he must take his position seriously."
Fetterman, who suffered from a stroke in 2022, was the subject of an alarming New York Magazine article last month that cited anecdotes from several former staffers about his issues, which the senator said was a "hit piece." The Philadelphia Inquirer also reported on the ex-staffers' concerns, including one who said, "It's pretty impossible to overstate how disengaged he is."
Fox News' Shannon Bream asked Fetterman during an installment of the Senate Project series, organized by the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate and the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation, about how the Democratic senator would respond to the Inquirer.
"Well, for me, it's very clear, which is part of like this weird smear, this thing," Fetterman said, pointing to his support for Israel, a strong border and his vote to avoid a government shutdown. "I've continued [to] get more and more kinds of incoming and those things, and all of those things. So, the more kinds of left kind of media continue to have these kinds of an attack, and it's just part of a smear, and it's just not accurate."
The Philadelphia Inquirer argued that the senator hasn't had much time for Pennsylvania or Washington, D.C., pointing to multiple trips he's taken to Israel, and his January trip to Mar-a-Lago to meet with President Donald Trump.
The Inquirer accused Fetterman of schmoozing Trump.
"It's time for Fetterman to serve Pennsylvanians, or step away," the Inquirer concluded.
A staffer told New York Magazine that he received a message questioning how Fetterman was doing, as he was found sitting at a table alone, silently drinking a soda.
The report went on to claim the lawmaker was "nearly struck by a car" and found "wandering" Capitol Hill.
"Former and current staffers paint a picture of an erratic senator who has become almost impossible to work for and whose mental-health situation is more serious and complicated than previously reported," the article read.
Fetterman was hospitalized for clinical depression shortly after taking office in 2023. He spent about six weeks in treatment before being released.
During his 2022 Pennsylvania Senate campaign, liberal media outlets aggressively defended Fetterman from concerns about his fitness for office after his stroke, but his pro-Israel stance and more moderate positions on some key issues have alienated some of his progressive supporters since then.
Fetterman's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
19 minutes ago
- CBS News
Pennsylvania law banning handheld devices while driving takes effect today
Pennsylvania's law that bans using handheld devices while driving takes effect today. The new law, known as Paul Miller's Law, says that picking up your phone for any reason while you're behind the wheel of your vehicle is illegal. The law comes after a man by the name of Paul Miller was killed in a vehicle crash in Monroe County in 2010 when a tractor-trailer driver reached for their phone while driving. The law bans using hand-held devices while driving and this includes when stopped at a red light, in a traffic delay, or during a momentary stop. Phones can still be used in hands-free technology is in place, allowing drivers to use GPS, be on a phone call, or listen to music. One exception in the law allows drivers who are experiencing an emergency situation to call law enforcement or emergency services. If drivers are caught with their phone in their hand, for the first year, it will be a written warning. Starting next year, there will be a $50 fine and court costs. A death by vehicle could include up to five years in jail. The law is enforceable by police as a primary offense, meaning drivers can be pulled over solely for using their phone.
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Odd Lots: Jersey City's Mayor on How the City Built So Much Housing
To some extent, at least in big cities, it feels as though the cost of housing is enveloping almost everything else in terms of politics right now. Booming areas that drive GDP have gotten incredibly expensive in large part thanks to rent, and even the well paid residents are forced to turn over a significant share of their income over to their landlord. So can anything be done about it? Can rent come down by liberalizing supply and making it easier to build? And can that scale? And what about developers that only want to build luxury-rate housing? On this episode of the podcast, we speak to Steven Fulop, the mayor of Jersey City, which sits directly across the river from NYC. Fulop is a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination for governor and he says his time in office in Jersey City proves cities can turn the dial on housing supply. We talk about why Jersey City has added so much to its housing stock, what can be attributed to his policies, and what he thinks can be accomplished at the state level both in terms of housing and improving public infrastructure.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed U.S. automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidize their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double U.S. capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognizing its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it. ____ Ashley Nunes is a senior research associate at Harvard Law School. ___
