Some good follow up articles to the "how exactly should we view/describe the despicable tactics used by Kemp to defeat Stacey Abrams in Georgia" discussion we mentioned this morning:
And in fact, when I read her quotes (rather than someone else's summary of them), I agree even stronger:
> And here’s the thing, Jake. I want to be very clear. Words have meaning. And I have spent my lifetime not only as an attorney, but as a writer. And I’m very careful with the words I choose.
> And, yes, when he takes the oath of office, he will be the legal governor of the state of Georgia. He is the legal victor.
> But what you are looking for me to say is that there was no compromise of our democracy, and that there should be some political compromise in the language I use. And that’s not right.
> What’s not right is saying that something was done properly, when it was not. I will never deny the legal — the legal imprimatur that says that he is in this position. And I pray for his success.
> But will I say that this election was not tainted, was not a disinvestment and a disenfranchisement of thousands of voters? I will not say that. . .
> I mean, holy hell. Because Kemp used the power of the office he held to help himself gain the office to which he was aspiring, this means that he could not be said to have "stolen" the election, even as a shorthand designation for his clearly corrupt conduct?
> Much of the most loyal portions of the Democratic Party's political base already believe from their own experience, and not because of anything Sherrod Brown and Stacey Abrams have said, that their elections are being stolen out from under them. It's up to the opposition to speak for those whose right to choose their own leaders was, yes, stolen from them through bureaucratic legerdemain and malfeasance in office.
More quotables from the WP article above:
> Third, the distinction between “legal” and “legitimate” is a tricky one, but here is the difference: There is legal legitimacy (what Abrams said amounted to getting more votes), and then there is moral legitimacy. If you take active measures to disenfranchise voters you think will vote against you (without a shred of evidence of voter fraud to justify your actions), you’re not in a good position to argue you have the latter.
> Moral legitimacy in a democracy comes from free and fair elections. American elections are distinguishable from phony elections that dictators run because, among other things, the outcome in American elections is not determined in advance and the popular will is respected.
> To the extent the Brian Kemps (or the Russians) put their fingers on the scale, the winner does risk a loss of moral legitimacy. You cannot systematically disenfranchise thousands of voters and claim your win is without taint.
