It’s clear — to anybody with eyes — that John Fetterman currently does not have the ability to serve effectively as Pennsylvania’s next Senator, Glenn says. And the Democrat candidate’s debate with Dr. Oz last night proved it. In fact, Glenn says the debate was ‘DISGUSTING,’ because no one on Fetterman’s staff stopped it before he embarrassed himself on live television: ‘How can that staff live with themselves?’ In this clip, Glenn and Stu dissect the debate and what Pennsylvania voters SURELY must be thinking after it…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Did anybody feel like they needed to take a shower, after the debate last night? It was so uncomfortable and so -- it was almost inhumane.
GLENN: It was disgusting. It really was. Suboptimal, if you're a politician. Disgusting, if you're a human being.
I -- it is -- it is clear Fetterman does not have the ability to be able to -- can you -- I mean, what is he going to do? You think he's going to go around and talk to senators and make a good case for his point of view? He is nothing, but a place holder, to be told what to vote on. Not somebody who is being brought in for his intellectual capabilities. He's just a vote. He's a puppet. And it -- and it was disgusting how -- how that staff can live with themselves, is beyond me. How do you -- how do you put a guy -- you don't walk out -- when you see this guy, operating at that level, you don't say, come on, guys. This is just -- this is just wrong. This is just wrong. This is the best candidate in all of Pennsylvania. Really?
STU: The entire campaign staff, should have walked out. Should have walked out and resigned weeks ago. If he insisted on going through with this. You know, from a political standpoint, under no circumstances, should they have agreed to this debate. They should have come up with some excuse.
We're not going to debate Dr. Oz. He lives in New Jersey.
We'll never find him in one of his mansions. He's having too much crudités. Whatever you wanted to say, to avoid this night happening, you needed to say, if you wanted your candidate to win. But that ignores the moral consequence of what they've done.
They put a man, embarrassed him in front of the entire country. They allowed this guy, to go up on stage. Which obviously. Obviously, anyone with eyes, could have told you, that that should not have occurred. They should not have put him out there. They should have months ago, said, look, we were really hoping for the best.
We were hoping, he could recover from this. The doctor said there was a chance. It didn't happen. We needed to change candidates, and put somebody else in.
GLENN: You know what is really bad? The media is still covering.
They're saying that this guy can recover, from these strokes.
More than he is. That's not true. The media is lying to you. Ask any doctor, or anyone who has ever had a stroke in their family. You have about six months to improve. Wherever you are, at the end of that six months, is pretty much where you'll be. You might make a little progress here or there. But nothing that is remarkable.
That's where you are. So this is who this guy is going to be. At his best!
This is who the guy is going to be. And really? You think that's appropriate to send him, into a deliberative body, at this time, in our nation?
STU: Glenn, you and I have watched some of the biggest debates, over the past 20 years. Some of which, Republicans have done really well.
They've -- I remember, watching them, and being -- you know, celebratory. Like this was incredible. Wow.
I really wanted Dr. Oz to win that debate last night. I did not feel good about watching it at all. It was disturbing to watch.
GLENN: Oh, I almost turned it off.
STU: Yeah. It was hard.
GLENN: It was so hard to watch.
I wanted Dr. Oz to win. And I think he clearly did.
GLENN: But to watch. This was a wounded animal.
GLENN: And the moderators did everything they could, to cover -- cut his time. You know, okay. Well, hang on just a second. Well, I want to ask you again.
Well, you didn't answer the question. I mean --
STU: It tells you everything you need to know about the Democratic Party.
GLENN: Let me just play a couple of cuts, in case you missed it. Here's Fetterman. This is his opening statement.
VOICE: What qualifies you to be a U.S. senator?
You have 60 seconds.
VOICE: Hi. Good night, everybody. I'm running to serve Pennsylvania. He's running to use Pennsylvania.
GLENN: Hello, got a night, everybody.
STU: And that was him saying good night to the campaign.
GLENN: You can say, okay. All right.
STU: You could say, maybe he meant good evening.
It's weird, because they keep telling us, he will just stumble over word. That's not what we saw last night. Yes, we saw a lot of that, I should be clear. But there were times that he could not grasp concepts.
GLENN: Here he is, calling out -- being called out on his fracking stance. Listen to this.
STU: Yeah. This is a great example.
VOICE: I absolutely support fracking. In fact, I live across the street from a steel mill, and they're going to frack, create their own energy, in order to make them more competitive. And I support that. Living closer to anybody else in Pennsylvania, for fracking to myself. I believe that we need independence with energy.
And I believe that I've walked that line my entire career. I believe Democrats --
GLENN: Mr. Fetterman, I do have a specific question. Which you can continue on this topic.
But you have made two conflicting statements regarding fracking.
In a 2018 interview, you said, quote, I don't support fracking at all. I never have. But earlier this month. You told an interviewer, quote, I support fracking. I support the energy independence, that we should have here in the United States.
So, Mr. Fetterman, please explain your changing position, 60 seconds.
VOICE: I've always supported fracking.
STU: That's not even the worst part of that.
GLENN: No, no, no. So they ask him. Here it is. Cut three.
VOICE: I do want to clarify something. You're saying tonight, that you support fracking, that you've always supported fracking, but there is that 2018 interview that you said, quote, I don't support fracking at all. So how do you square the two?
GLENN: This is the fourth attempt.
VOICE: Oh. I -- I do support fracking. And I don't -- I don't -- I support fracking, and I stand, and I do support fracking.
STU: I mean, I -- breathless watching that. That's maybe the single worst moment in any debate, I've ever seen in my life. And, Glenn, that has nothing to do with auditory processing.
STU: That is a man who cannot come up with, I changed my mind. I don't remember that interview. Maybe I was misquoted. I don't know what the -- the context of that comment was, but I've always supported fracking. Anything other than just repeating yourself, multiple times over. Stopping. Reversing yourself. And then saying it again.
That is not -- that has nothing -- that's brain function. Anyone would know, to say something that would justify that comment. There are things, right?
Look, I had a change of heart on this. In 2018, I was a little skeptical. And I've changed my mind. In 2018, I don't know what that interview is. I don't remember what that interview is at all. I don't know what that quote is, I will have to look it up, after the debate. There's 100 things you can say in that moment to get out of it, he can't come up with one of them.
GLENN: So it is not brain function. It is not brain function. As a father of a daughter, who has strokes, Mary can tell you everything you need to know about the Federal Reserve. Okay? She can tell you you need to know about money printing. Everything else. Because she's asked me about it.
GLENN: She processes things much differently. Language. So it takes her -- when I taught her, you know, about the fed, it took me three days to find the way to explain it to her, until she got it. Then she gets it.
And then she's got to translate it. And she'll say several times. I'm looking for the word. It's not -- no. It's not -- it's not.
And she'll get very frustrated. Because she -- she can see it in her head. But she cannot spit it out.
GLENN: She can't do it. But that doesn't mean, that you should serve in the Senate. This is a senior statesman.
Okay? This is the guy, who has to make the case, to his people in his state, why he voted a certain way.
If he can't make the case, on the floor, back home, on television, what good -- I mean this nicely. What good is he?
STU: As a senator.
GLENN: He is only a vote. That's all he is.
He is not somebody who can persuade people. Or explain things.
Nothing. That is a big part of the job. You know, if you had a president, who just could not communicate at all, for some reason.
STU: What a crazy scenario. Explain this. It sounds too foreign. To understand.
GLENN: Right. But he could not communicate at all. But he was fully lucid. He would not make a good president. Because he has to be able to communicate.
STU: Right. It's a crucial part of the job.
GLENN: It's a crucial part.
STU: And I make the Biden joke.
But to be clear. And I, again, think Joe Biden is a terrible, terrible president.
STU: And he really does have these issues that we've talked about over these years. But when you watch a 20-minute speech from Joe Biden. What you'll see, is 13 or 14 minutes of basic coherence. You will see a significant piece of time, where Joe Biden is communicating somewhat okay.
STU: You will understand what he means. You can understand what he's going for. And then Biden has his couple of moments there, that are terrible.
And he loses where he's going. And he just stops, and says, come on, man. Whatever. We've talked about it 100 times.
Joe Biden is light years away -- or ahead of where John Fetterman is. Fetterman was the entire time, like that.
GLENN: So here's the question: When someone can't explain themselves, from confusion or whatever, it leads to really bad things.
For instance, let me play what the president just said this week, about the bailout for student loans. Listen to this.
BIDEN: You probably are aware, I just signed a law that was challenged by my Republican laws. The same people that look at PPP loans for up to close -- in some cases, five, $600,000. They have no problem with that. The individuals in Congress, got those. But what we've provided for.
If you go to school. If you qualify for a Pell grant. You qualify for 2000 -- I mean, excuse me.
You qualify for $20,000 in debt forgiveness. Secondly, if you don't have one of those loans, you just get 10,000 written off. It's passed. I got it passed by a voter too.
GLENN: Stop. He didn't get that passed. It wasn't passed by a vote or two.
STU: Called it a law.
GLENN: Yeah. It's not a law. It was an executive order. So, is he lying? Is he confused? Or is he being told something, that isn't true?
Is he being told, no, Mr. President, you have the right to do that. You don't remember?
They passed that law. It was close. But you won it by a couple of votes. All of those are possible.
He may be being lied to. And just used, as a puppet. He may be confused, at that moment. Or he may be lying. We should know which one.
STU: There's not another possibility though. It's one of those three. All of them are terrible.
GLENN: It's one of those.
STU: But honestly, we've come to the point, where my standards are so low. I'm cheering for the lying.
STU: That is where we are with this country, with this leadership.
GLENN: You're not going to fix a country, if you're cheering for the lying option. You're just not.