After two years of pushing to censor books and accusing most anyone who objected of supporting pedophilia, the so-called “Moms for Liberty” appear to be flaming out.
First, one of the co-founders of this supposedly family-values group was caught in a sex scandal.
Then, the two remaining members basically destroyed themselves on “60 Minutes” when they couldn’t answer basic questions about their own behavior. The segment turned even more damning when the news magazine interviewed true defenders of liberty — combat veterans who spoke eloquently how dangerous they considered the Moms for “Liberty” to be.
Then, just a few days after that piece aired, Republican lawmakers in Florida refused to make a “Liberty” Mom one of the state’s top ethics officials — even though the request came directly from Gov. Ron DeSantis. It was a rare instance of Florida Republicans refusing to follow DeSantis’ orders.
And it never would’ve happened if the Moms for “Liberty” brand hadn’t turned toxic.
So what changed?
Florida Senate won’t confirm Moms for Liberty co-founder to ethics board
Well, Bridget Ziegler’s sex-scandal headlines certainly made eyes roll. But the most damning thing to happen to the Moms was probably when Scott Pelley put a microphone in front of them.
Pelley simply asked if they could back up some of the heinous accusations they’ve repeatedly made, including accusing teachers of being indoctrinators and pedophiles. They could not.
I don’t mean that they couldn’t offer an explanation that I found satisfactory. I mean they literally couldn’t put words together in any sort of sensible fashion.
Co-founder Tiffany Justice said teachers were “indoctrinating” students. Pelley asked: “What ideology are they being indoctrinated into?”
Justice couldn’t answer. So, after a long pause, co-founder Tina Descovich jumped in to say: “Let’s just say that children in America cannot read …”
It was a total dodge, and Pelley pointed it out.
Pelley then went on to read some of the group’s tweets where they called people “groomers” — a word used by fringe groups to accuse opponents of wanting to prime children for molestation.
If they don’t like being called groomers, they should stop trying to groom our kids. https://t.co/rFIwMSfBLu
— Moms for Liberty (@Moms4Liberty) July 19, 2022
Pelley read a tweet where the group accused a middle-school librarian of wanting “to groom our children” and asked: “What do you mean?”
Again, they couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question. About their own words, mind you. It was cringe-inducing.
The Moms knew how awful they looked. After the piece aired, they went into meltdown mode, accusing the news magazine of selective editing to make them look bad.
In one Twitter post, Justice claimed Pelley edited out her full answer. So she included 262 more words that she said weren’t aired. But here’s the thing: None of those additional words answered his question either. In fact, Justice couldn’t even bring herself to utter the one and only word Pelley asked about — the grooming accusation the group tosses around so casually when cameras aren’t rolling.
Really, though, the most damning part of the “60 Minutes” piece focused on a book censorship crusade in Beaufort, South Carolina — a Deep South county that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. It’s a county steeped in both conservatism and culture. Residents there understand the value of literature. Many served in the armed forces and have little use for government censorship.
“I’m a combat veteran, right?” said Ruth Naomi James, who vetted books that activists wanted censored. “There’s no way I went to Iraq, thinking that when I went back home, I would have to do this to make sure that the freedom that we fight for isn’t taken out of the hands of students and parents.”
There was school board member Dick Geier, a retired army colonel and registered Republican who calmly explained that parents have every right to decide what their own children can read, but that these activists “want to determine what other parents’ rights are.”
And there was Karen Gareis, a school librarian who spent 27 years in the Navy and who explained that parents already had the right to contact her to prohibit their own children from reading certain books — but that none had ever done so.
It was a powerful assembly of voices, all saying that the version of “liberty” espoused by these Florida Moms didn’t match any definition of the word these patriots fought for.
What we saw in South Carolina is something we haven’t seen much of in Florida — conservative leaders demonstrating true conservative principles by opposing censorship and authoritarianism.
Still, Florida Republicans did take a first step this month when they refused to confirm Descovich as an ethics commissioner.
A resident of Brevard County, where the group is based, had noted that Descovich is a paid political operative, which seems to be at odds with state laws that say ethics commissioners can’t also be lobbyists. And this time, GOP lawmakers appeared to have had enough.
DeSantis is one of the few standing firm with the Moms. He not only still wants Descovich on the ethics commission, he apparently wants her to serve without the Senate’s approval — which tells you all you need to know about this state’s commitment to ethics.
Florida’s farcical ethics enforcement exposed in Disney district boss’ new $400k job | Commentary
I’d encourage you to watch the “60 Minutes” piece for yourself. (I’ve posted the 13-minute segment right here in the online version of this column.) Make up your own mind.
There are legitimate debates to be had among thoughtful people about what’s appropriate for kids to read. That is, in fact, what Beaufort County decided. The school district took its time, studied all 97 books that activists wanted censored and concluded 93 of them should stay … which, I guess, makes this community full of veterans and conservatives a bunch of “groomers” in the eyes of the Moms.
![Growing up in rural Appalachia, I was taught America stood for its freedom – so long as you weren’t harming another person, you could do whatever you want, and when you own a piece of American land, you can use it however you want. Those ideals, particularly the latter, shaped American cities into the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Neighborhoods evolved with a diverse mix of residential and commercial spaces seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. Bustling streets with trolleys, bicycles, and cars shared the public space with street vendors. That changed in the mid-20th century after the Supreme Court validated […]](https://www.orlandosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/migration/2016/10/28/JP2SEXJOVFE3XDOP7G5FG5XXHA.jpg?w=535 "Growing up in rural Appalachia, I was taught America stood for its freedom – so long as you weren’t harming another person, you could do whatever you want, and when you own a piece of American land, you can use it however you want. Those ideals, particularly the latter, shaped American cities into the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Neighborhoods evolved with a diverse mix of residential and commercial spaces seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. Bustling streets with trolleys, bicycles, and cars shared the public space with street vendors. That changed in the mid-20th century after the Supreme Court validated […]")