Thread by @LarryGlickman

The Republican responses to Trump’s racist tweets about Elijah Cummings are a case study in collective moral cowardice and white grievance./1 washingtonpost.com/politics/repub…

Almost all of them say a version of Mark Meadows’s response (remember that Meadows looked to Cummings for absolution from a perceived charge of racism on national tv not long ago): “Neither man is a racist.” What?/2

Meadows's statement demonstrates a completely false and despicable moral equivalence. Who really thought that the compelling ethical issue here is that both men were accused of racism? Remember that among Trump's racist tweets was the ridiculous charge that Cummings is racist./3

In a series of racist tweets Trump included his usual "I'm rubber, you're glue" claim (technically called "projection") about the person whom he had attacked. So, Meadows chose to take one of Trump's diversionary racist tweets as his ethical standard. /4

Meadows then threw in a reference to "partisanship," as if there are two sides at fault here. Rather than defending his friend, he thus consistently put Trump and Cummings in the same moral position--not racist, both partisan./5

Finally, reverting to the "neither man is a racist" diversion allowed Meadows to escape comment on these undeniably racist tweets. True, he didn't tell us that Trump doesn't have a "racist bone" in his body but summing up his essence as "not a racist" serves the same function./6

It's wonderful that Meadows is "committed" to "working with both of them." How magnanimous that he'll continue working with Rep. Cummings, who did nothing but serve as the target of Trump's racist fulminations. This is both sidesism of the most morally obtuse sort. /7

Keep in mind that the @washingtonpost amazingly called Meadows's statement "the most notable defense of Cummings." That's one way to put a defense of Trump that outrageously and falsely used Cummings as a prop to stand in for "racism" and "partisanship" on the other side. /8

@washingtonpost Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito didn't mention Trump at all. Instead, they bravely declaimed that they didn't think that Elijah Cummings "is a racist." Incredibly, and inaccurately, the Post called these "some of the strongest rejections of Trump's attack." Really?/9

@washingtonpost Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. John N. Kennedy followed the Meadows route in saying that neither Cummings nor Trump is a racist. For @seungminkim and Laura Hughes of the Post, this counts as a rejection of "the president's assertion." /10

@washingtonpost @seungminkim Referring to Trump's tweets, Sen. Kevin Cramer said he didn't know "whether I agree with him or not." Then, he turned to liberal bashing because "they want to be victims at the same time.” More projection from a party that has embraced victimization./11

@washingtonpost @seungminkim Sen. Tim Scott claimed not to "know what it means" & Sen. Mitt Romney denounced "the latest act of political theater." Yet another example of how the party of "personal responsibility" spreads the blame for Trump's action to "politics" or "Washington" or "partisanship."/12

@washingtonpost @seungminkim A great example of the deflection of responsibility came in Romney's reference "this back-and-forth," when, in fact, there was no "back-and-forth," only Trump's despicable tweets. /13

@washingtonpost @seungminkim Then, there is this gobsmacking sentence: "Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)....declined to engage on Cummings-related questions and would not answer when asked if he agreed with Trump that the congressman is racist." Wut? /14

@washingtonpost @seungminkim I take it to mean that @washingtonpost journalists, rather than reporting on Trump's actions, instead framed it in their questions to members of Congress as a "Cumming-related" issue and that they thought the key issue of Trump's tweetstorm is whether Cummings "is racist."/15

@washingtonpost @seungminkim Let this sink in: after one of the most egregiously racist comments a U.S. president has ever made, these reporters thought this was the key issue to interview a United States Senator about. How could they possibly think this was a valid question? /16

@washingtonpost @seungminkim They felt the issue of whether Rep. Cummings is a racist was so important that they asked the same thing Sen. Todd Young who was able to say, "I don't know Elijah Cummings," as if the issue is his judgement on Cummings rather than on Trump./17

@washingtonpost @seungminkim So in writing about Republican reaction to Trump's tweets, the @washingtonpost framed their story in Trumpian terms. They not only missed the point, but they did so in a way that reinforced Trump's racism. /18

@washingtonpost @seungminkim The article concludes with two paragraphs about Republican responses to Trump's characterizations of Cummings as a racist, which the reporters elicited. Why? That is the story that Trump would want them to write. /19

@washingtonpost @seungminkim Because the reporters only introduce the questions that they (or perhaps it was another Post reporter) asked toward the end of the piece, it makes me wonder whether they asked similar questions (making Cummings not Trump the focus) to those quoted near the top. /20

@washingtonpost @seungminkim I'd love to see @CJR @jayrosen_nyu @NPRCodeSwitch and others who examine issues of media framing follow up on this. And it would be wonderful if our great newspapers restored the public editor position. /21