Thread by @LarryGlickman

From start to finish, this article is written from the perspective of the GOP. This is not only unfair, it also takes as a given that the GOP is negotiating in good faith, something recent history suggests is not warranted./1 washingtonpost.com/politics/biden…

Let’s start with the sub-hed, which suggests that going big on infrastructure is somehow in conflict with helping the middle class, a POV offered by a Republican Senator in piece. /1

Then, the lede claims that the unserious figure proposed by Republicans, which would make significant infrastructure investment impossible, is the “workable” one. /3 (misnumbered previous tweet; sorry).

Then, the piece, not taking the GOP POV but as a seeming statement of fact, praises Biden for his “openness” to the GOP lowball. But when he responded with a figure roughly halfway between their stated position and his, it hastens to inform us that they were “taken aback.” /4

And look who gets the last word? Sen. Barrasso who repeats GOP fear-mongering rhetoric that dates back a century about “socialism” and who proposes the false binary that made it into the sub-hed./5

As I’ve said before, every reporter covering the GOP counter-proposals should contextualize these negotiations with reference to the “Gang of Six,” the Republicans who delayed passage of and nearly killed the ACA in 2009, and unanimously voted against it./ 6

And you’d think this bit of information would be foregrounded in every article about Republican negotiations with he Biden administration. /7