As Twitchy reported a couple of weeks ago, it looked like the memo had gone out, and Christina Pushaw posted a collage of headlines all pushing back against the “groomer” label that conservatives were using against those arguing that kindergarteners should be taught about sexual orientation and gender identity.

We did a post on the argument over the word “groomer”: Liberals, obviously, were deeply offended by such a disgusting homophobic slur, but there were plenty of conservatives and Principled Conservatives™ who also thought the Right should back off, as the battle had already been won. David French, for one, said redefining the word was “pure malice,” and NRO fellow Nate Hochman warned conservatives against throwing the “groomer” word around because it made us sound like the crazy ones.

In late March, Florida state legislators held meetings discussing the repeal of the 1967 Reedy Creek Improvement Act, which essentially allowed the Disney theme park to act as its own government. As we learned Wednesday morning, though, the Florida Senate, on a 23-16 vote, passed legislation ending Disney’s tax privilege, self-governing power, and special exemption status.

Charles C. W. Cooke writes in National Review that the battle over the Parental Rights in Education Act has already been won, and there’s no need for DeSantis or the legislature to salt the earth.

Cooke writes:

… advocates of further retribution tend to switch gears and contend that Walt Disney World is not “entitled” to the setup it enjoys in Florida, that no law is guaranteed to “last forever,” and that Disney’s special status, granted before 1968, was probably due for “reconsideration” anyway. In a vacuum, these arguments are all defensible, but in context, they represent an extreme form of gaslighting. Until about a month ago, Walt Disney World’s legal status was not even a blip on the GOP’s radar. No Republicans were calling for it to be revisited, nor did they have any reason to. Yes, Disney isn’t “entitled” to its arrangement. But Disney wasn’t “entitled” to it in 2012, 2002, 1992, 1982, or 1972, either, and yet, amazingly enough, the legislature showed zero interest in rescinding it when given the opportunity on those occasions. That it’s doing so now is ugly. That it’s pretending that it’s doing so out of a concern for “good government” is grotesque.

Ugly? Grotesque? What do you think … should the DeSantis administration just take the win and move on?

The thing about the “groomer” tag is that it hurt, and the reaction from the media was proof. Cooke is getting ratio’d by both sides for calling the Parental Rights in Education Bill “sensible.” You can’t win. Well, you can’t win that way.


Recommended Twitchy Video

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...