The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently ran a front-page article on defeated Georgia Democratic socialist Stacey Abrams’s selection as the purveyor of the Democratic Party response to the State of the Union speech due to be delivered on February 5.
This selection makes it indisputable that the left is wholly incapable of countering President Donald Trump and his administration’s success with economic growth, breakthroughs in international diplomacy, tax cuts to the middle class and businesses, an improved healthcare delivery system, historic jobs (high) and unemployment (low) numbers, bringing our troops home, and his relentless effort to secure our nation, especially at the southern border.
The Democrat socialists instead will attempt to change the narrative and chastise those Americans who choose work over welfare, life over abortion, and the rule of law governing immigration over lawlessness and, of course, excoriate those who, by working hard or having an entrepreneurial spirit, have improved their financial position in life.
Hence, the Democrats tapped Abrams, a defeated left-wing candidate for the governorship of Georgia with only state house legislative experience.
Also, look for the usual ad hominem attacks on the President and all those who dare disagree with the collectivist manifesto of the Pelosi-Schumer Reich.
But this is nothing new.
The leftists only have their “America last, illegal immigrants first” message. That they blocked the president in his efforts to secure the southern border with a wall or other barriers is certain to be a bragging point for these, well, obstructionists.
But here, however, the president has cleverly changed the narrative.
Conservative writer Don Cole observed that the president’s recent move made “furloughed federal workers … no longer an issue. Now, the issue is solely on border security and funding a wall to address the crisis on our Southern border.”
Their punching bag is now the safety and security of a nation, not idled federal employees without paychecks.
But back to the AJC’s fawning column on Abrams.
Consider this paragraph in the piece describing part of the president’s speech, given when he came to Georgia in support of Gov. Brian Kemp’s successful campaign for governor:
“‘[Abrams] wants to raise your income tax very substantially, she wants to raise your property tax very substantially,’ Trump falsely asserted, adding ‘she supports a socialistic takeover of health care.'” (Note that he wasn’t accused of “falsely asserting” that she endorsed a “socialistic takeover of health care”.)
The fact is that she advocated for the repeal of the recently-passed Georgia income tax cut, which she later back-peddled on– a fact well publicized by the AJC.
Nonetheless, her stated position clearly elucidated a proclivity for higher income taxes, as did her position on property taxes when she opposed a bill to freeze property tax assessments, thus affording property owners a break from further property tax increases back in 2008.
While she may have tried to soften her tone for political expediency purposes, a leopard can’t change his spots.
The AJC, then, running an article stating that “Trump falsely asserted” anything is not only irresponsible journalism, but also consists of editorializing in what was supposed to be a news report.
Where journalists think the president “falsely asserted” or engaged in political hyperbole that crossed a line, fine, that’s their right but they should honestly editorialize about it and spare the reading public from a personal perspective when publishing a news column.
It would seem that injecting subjective remarks in a news article would breach some ethical standard of journalism. But perhaps where President Trump is involved, there are no ethical standards requiring adherence.
Journalists of this sort are no different than those who purloin for a living, and there is no honor among them.
Gary Wisenbaker (email@example.com) is a political consultant at Blackstone LLC.