This clip sucks for several reasons. In the background, Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, who was defeated in her 2018 gubernatorial campaign – her party’s choice as a response to next week’s State of the Union address. In this interview – published long after it became abundantly clear that the original formulation was disastrously wrong and unfair – he dismisses the larger context “narrative” as almost irrelevant. He explains that what matters is what people saw in the context-free clip. What they saw was “inappropriate” language and “disrespect.” And yes, she’s absolutely talking about Covington Catholic students, not screaming black Hebrew Israelites insults and vulgarisms in teenagers. And not Native Americans serial provocateur who got caught numerous lieswho decided it was a good idea to hit a drum a few inches from the child’s face, and whose aide was busy telling the white students, “return to Europe“
It doesn’t matter what led to this viral moment, Abrams says. What matters is that these children behaved badly (which, for the most part, they did not) – and that it is Donald Trump’s fault because they followed his lead in “xenophobia, racism, bigotry and hatred.” If you are looking for an emotional, tendentious, leftist heated take on Covingtoneven after getting the facts, it doesn’t get any hotter than this:
This interview with Stacy Abrams at Covington Catholic (a few days after we learned additional context and everyone apologized) is very strange.
He continues to blame children, even for “inappropriate language” that we knew came from another group, and ties it all to Trump. pic.twitter.com/Map2o2o8Hb
—Matt Whitlock ???? (@mattdizwhitlock) February 1, 2019
Abrams is reportedly trying to do just that after his November debacle lean even tighter into identity politics, which is a protected political choice given her party’s terrifying zeitgeist. It’s also telling that Democratic leaders choose to showcase a woman who He refused to accept defeat in her race, instead implying that the result was tainted or illegitimate due to “suppression.” In this statement, as he apparently is wont to do, he does not allow some facts stand in the way of her favorite story:
They complain that Kemp ran for governor when he was still secretary of state. Yes, but The Georgia Constitution allows this and it has been done before. In the 2000s, Democrat Cathy Cox, while serving as Secretary of State, ran for her party’s nomination for governor. Kemp ran for re-election twice while holding office, and no one seriously accused him of misconduct. In any case, it’s the localities that count the votes, not the Secretary of State’s office. They claim Kemp closed the polls. According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, this is true Since 2012, 214 voting districts have been closed in Georgia. This just isn’t Brian Kemp’s work. Districts decide to close polling places. Typically, it is rural, cash-strapped areas that combine counties to eliminate underutilized polling places and locations that do not meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
When controversy erupted over a proposal to close seven of nine counties in minuscule, majority-black Randolph County, Kemp came out publicly and opposed the plan. (Randolph, as it happens, voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Donald Trump won five of the seven districts slated for closure.) They allege that Kemp kept people suspended from voting because of minor registration errors. Under Georgia’s so-called Exact Match Law, if a voter’s registration information doesn’t match their driver’s license, state ID or Social Security information, the voter has just over two years to correct the discrepancy. Until then, the voter goes to the “waiting tab” (53,000 people are in it). This is not a voting ban. If the voter shows up at the polling station with a document confirming his/her data (it is mandatory in Georgia), there is no problem. Finally, they oppose Kemp’s enforcement of Georgia’s “use it or lose it” rule. A similar law in Ohio was upheld by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
She lost fair and square, refused to give up, and was rewarded with a raucous platform. The clip above is a useful example of how knee-jerk partisans will learn their lesson to want learn, no matter what the evidence says. Part of the problem with the Covington case, which now seems like a distant memory, was the willingness of many in the press to extrapolate “larger truths” from a cultural flashpoint that they immediately assumed was an illustration of something they passionately believed. As more and more information came in, the media thread changed from “aren’t these young Trumps terrible?” to “look at these conservatives dirty ‘thrashing around“in our collective rush to judgment!” Ross Douthat noted on Twitter yesterday that journalists were ecstatic to fall into the cultural fire at Covington, yet their treatment of the Democrats’ radical abortion bills was exceptionally cautious and lukewarm for comparison:
Yet somehow, the same mainstream (not leftist) journalists and editors who commissioned stories about white supremacy within an hour of the Covington video managed to control themselves, refrain from tweeting the story, stop and ask for context. ..
— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) January 31, 2019
There is a case for a mainstream media that handles viral outrages with caution and patience, and that frames debates in terms of “supporters say X” rather than just resorting to “X.” But not so with the media, which merely errs on the side of caution when it comes to scandals that incite the ire of social conservatives.
— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) January 31, 2019
Much of the mainstream, in fact stories emerging from the late-term abortion controversy almost comical manifestations of the “conservative onslaught” template – so much so that they can be read as satirical corporate PR for the abortion lobby:
This is probably the greatest example of the “Republican Movement!” I’ve ever seenhttps://t.co/3sBjFm7Hbz pic.twitter.com/watqtZVizu
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) January 31, 2019
In case you were wondering, this ridiculous inflatable “rescue” piece. doesn’t even bother quoting The featured lawyer’s literal words in defense of her terrible legislation, and that’s what caused the outrage in the first place. As I’ve written before, there are very few issues on which the mainstream media is more biased, more off-topic, and more unable (or unwilling) to conceal its agenda than abortion. Whether it’s the Covington abortion or the nine-month abortion, most “reporters” have chosen sides in the culture wars and that’s why the Abramses of the world aren’t worried about spreading her Covington garbage and that’s why Democratic senators feel comfortable spending concise “no comment” about their party’s crazy abortion fanaticism. They will get the press cover they need to get rid of the problem, despite the “attacks” and “gimmicks” from critics.
