Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart reportedly resigned from the Washington Post editorial board, although he has stayed on as a columnist, over a Dec. 6 editorial that they published over his objection.
What position did the Washington Post editorial board take that was so offensive to Capehart?
RON DESANTIS IS BREAKING DEMOCRAT BRAINS
They had the temerity to endorse Georgia as an early primary state for the Democratic Party’s presidential selection process. Taking Sen. Raphael Warnock's (D-GA) runoff election victory over Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker, the Washington Post editorial board wrote:
Leaving aside the Washington Post’s attack on Iowa as not being reflective of the U.S., the rest of the paragraph sounds pretty reasonable. So why did Capehart get so upset? Probably because of this paragraph:
Capehart has been particularly vocal in his embrace of the false Democratic messaging that Georgia’s voting reform laws amount to “Jim Crow 2.0.” He is deeply invested. In a Nov. 9, 2022, column immediately after the election, Capehart wrote:
…
Stacey Abrams, who on Tuesday lost her rematch against Gov. Brian Kemp, perhaps best captured the pernicious power of voting restrictions. As she said during a 2019 interview with me, “The challenge of voter suppression is it not only blocks you from voting — it convinces you it’s not worth trying.” “Jim Crow 2.0” might not have blocked as many people from the voting booth as feared. But have no doubt it did its insidious convincing. And if allies of democracy don’t keep objecting to Georgia’s law — even on principle — expect that insidiousness to spread.
Does Capehart have any evidence that Georgia’s law convinced anyone not to vote? Of course not.
In fact, what has been shown is that twice-failed George gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams spent $9.4 million trying to identify voters that were prevented from voting by Georgia election law. She could only find one, and even that voter would have been able to vote if she had been able to wait longer than 15 minutes at a polling station.
The reality is that the election reform laws passed in Georgia under Kemp are wildly popular and sensible. A recent University of Georgia poll found that 95% of Georgia voters said their voting experience was “good,” while just 0.6% said their experience was “poor.” So are you going to believe Capehart, or are you going to believe the universal consensus of Georgia voters?
Capehart’s exit from the Washington Post editorial board has reportedly left it without any black members. That’s too bad. But I am very confident they will easily be able to find a black person to replace Capehart and who is perfectly fine with Georgia’s election law. Apparently, there are millions of them in Georgia.