Seldom have I read such a misleading news article from a major publication, in this case, The Washington Post. Its journalistic theme resided in a separate dimension from the political world's reality, which is spelled out in the above-the-fold piece — and thus made the theme so strikingly incongruent.
The story's substance addresses Trump's dinner last week with the despicable antisemites Kanye West (or "Ye") and Nick Fuentes. Noted as background is that the former president's advisers had tried to convince him to cancel the dinner — because, well, Kanye West — but Trump, said one, "wasn’t having any of it." West had made a career of flattering Trump, and that was all Trump needed. "He’s always been a nice guy to me,” he said. So the dinner was on.
His only disgruntlement now is that West brought Fuentes along. His denial of foreknowledge is a bit hard to swallow; the dinner had been planned "for days" and Trump's Mar-a-Lago bunker is still guarded by the meticulous S.S. (i.e., the Secret Service). At any rate, Trump has since refused to apologize for staging the dinner or to denounce either of the antisemites. As for Fuentes, Trump is sticking to his story: "I never heard of the man," he told Fox News Digital this Tuesday.
But on to The Washington Post's dubious coverage of the brouhaha. Three of the paper's journalists — Isaac Arnsdorf, Josh Dawsey and Marianna Sotomayor — reported on the event in terms unrecognizable from what followed in the story itself. In various sections we read that "Trump’s refusal to apologize for or disavow the [attendees] is setting him increasingly at odds with leaders of his own party." And "the floodgates opened Monday as at least eight Republican senators joined in criticizing the dinner." And "the blowback from Republican lawmakers contrasted with the common practice during Trump’s presidency of often avoiding questions about Trump’s latest outrages or claiming not to have seen his tweets."
Now for the reality, in the article. The cited "leaders of his own party" included only a few of those who had already shown a willingness to criticize Trump, for they are the ones who want his old job: specifically, Chris Christie ("Trump’s recent actions and history of poor judgment make him untenable as a candidate for our party" and Mike Pence ("I think he should apologize for it, and he should denounce those individuals"). Yet "others were more cautious," notes the Post. For one, Mike Pompeo; he denounced antisemitism but without naming Trump or even his dinner guests. The Republican Party's now most prominent leader, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, has remained silent on the issue altogether.
Those eight Republican senators? "Their leader," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said "Anyone meeting with people advocating that point of view, in my judgment, are highly unlikely to ever be elected president of the United States." Anyone is not Trump, which is to say, McConnell did not name Trump. (McConnell's milquetoast remark nevertheless inspired Trump to once again label the senator a "loser" in a Fox News interview.)
As for those other Republican senators who reportedly were so bold — which is also to say, merely decent — as to openly criticize the Orange Blight? Turns out, not really. Outrageously, this reality required reporting from three other Post journalists in another article. "[They] placed blame on unnamed Trump staff instead of the former president," they wrote. And "some Senate Republicans kept their comments focused on Fuentes specifically, or antisemitism broadly, avoiding speaking directly about Trump."
Sen. Thom Tillis was typical: "Whoever had responsibility for knowing the backgrounds of people in the room, I hope they’re already fired because that was bad decision-making on their part.” Tillis "declined to say whether Trump should apologize." Sen. John Thune: "I don’t know who was advising [Trump] on his staff, but I hope that whoever that person was got fired." Sen. Rick Scott: "I think Republicans should all condemn white supremacy and antisemitism." And the ever-flexible Sen. Lindsey Graham said no one should "give oxygen to people like that," and oh, by the way, he still supports Trump, he added.
In the no-news news department, the Post article went on to observe that "House Republicans were mostly dodging reporters’ questions about the dinner, with a handful completely ignoring repeated attempts for answers." The incoming speaker, Kevin McCarthy, said no one "should be spending any time with Nick Fuentes" because "he has no place in the Republican Party" — even though Trump made room for him. And Kevin was at his McCarthesque best when reporters "noted that he had incorrectly suggested that Trump had condemned Fuentes." Replied Kevin, "Well, I condemn his ideology."
Outside of the rhetorically disabled and logically disadvantaged future speaker, only the House's Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared to be quotable. She repeated Trump's unconvincing contention that he "had no idea who Nick Fuentes was," and added that such guests would be barred by staff from here on. "Any former president should have that in place," she said. “If you don’t know who someone is and don’t know what they’re about, you don’t know that they’re maybe a bad person in your midst." This, ironically, could be truthfully said of anyone so benighted as to ignorantly ponder dining with Trump.
If you resist my assessment of the Post article — there were no floodgates of criticism opened, there was no near-monolithic or even particularly notable blowback from Republican lawmakers — then read the article yourself and see what you think. I think it was misleading, and appallingly so. Moreover, and more important, the elected members of Trump's party remain cowered by his presence. But they're behind the popular curve, which is being set by a handful of Trump's presidential competitors. DeSantis, I suspect, will adjust accordingly; for now, for him, it's too soon.