dailysignal--2020-12-11--I’m a Doctor. Here’s Why I Plan to Get the Coronavirus Vaccine.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ’ s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee concluded its Thursday meeting by recommending that a coronavirus vaccine developed by Pfizer be granted an emergency-use authorization .
Another vaccine , developed by biotech company Moderna , is expected to be authorized soon .
Both Pfizer ’ s and Moderna ’ s vaccines show 95 % efficacy in preventing infections , which means the definitive end of the COVID-19 pandemic may be imminent .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
I , for one , eagerly await the chance to immunize myself—to both protect myself and to prevent myself from being able to contract and transmit the virus any further .
And once that injection goes into my arm , I will be asking , “ Please , may I have another in 21-28 days , per the dosing protocol ?
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I—a young healthy individual at very low risk from COVID-19—will have to wait a little longer to get my immunization .
Possibly until spring .
This is as it should be .
As part of a wise vaccination policy , the initial doses will first go to where they will have the most benefit .
Those over 65 years of age continue to make up a relatively small portion of COVID-19 cases , but a disproportionately large proportion of mortality .
Giving them first access to the protection of the coronavirus vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit to the cause of saving lives from this virus .
Understandably , many people I ’ ve talked to have expressed concern with how fast these vaccines have been produced .
But I have great confidence in the vaccines ’ safety performance .
The vaccine development process was sped up by taking out slack in all of the bureaucratic , non-clinical barriers to drug approval .
As Ed Haislmaier , a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation , described it , “ Both biomedical companies and federal officials recognized early on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort was to ‘ parallel process ’ whenever and wherever possible , meaning processes that would normally take place sequentially were pursued simultaneously.
” In other words , Operation Warp Speed—the national initiative to fast-track the development of a coronavirus vaccine—accelerated the development process by cutting the slack while maintaining rigorous safety precautions .
In fact , participation in Operation Warp Speed required manufacturers to enroll at least 30,000 participants in the phase three trial—the final phase of clinical trials before drugs can be given to the public .
Although the phase three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet concluded , they already have data on more than 40,000 volunteers , approximately half of whom received the vaccine while the other half received a placebo to compare against and judge the vaccine ’ s efficacy .
Furthermore , the program requires a median follow-up time of two months for safety data .
This means that half of the participants have been followed for two months or longer to watch for adverse effects of the vaccine .
While a very large proportion of participants experienced reactions to the vaccine , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , none of these adverse effects met the criteria for halting the trial .
In the vaccine group of more than 21,000 participants , there were only four severe adverse events related to the vaccine , but these were transient .
That said , it is important to note that a very large proportion of participants experienced reactions , such as fatigue , headache , and fever .
These types of reaction are normal and can be expected as a result of the body ’ s antibody response to the vaccine—this is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the study participants have contracted COVID-19 after receiving two injections of either the vaccine or the placebo .
The vast majority of those , 168 , were in the placebo group .
Only eight of those who received the real vaccine contracted the virus .
When comparing the two groups , the vaccine was shown to be 95 % effective at preventing an infection by SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 .
Even with one dose , which is only half the vaccine regimen , 39 individuals in the vaccine group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placebo group—this corresponds to a 52 % vaccine efficacy after only one dose .
Overall , these results are incredibly promising , and may definitively break the grip of the virus on the country—and not a moment too soon as the country is currently experiencing an explosion in the number of COVID-19 cases .
Even if there is an immediate approval given , the vaccine takes two doses over three weeks to create a maximal antibody response by the fourth week .
Thus , the vaccinations should begin to have a substantial positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For that , we should certainly rejoice .
The expected approval of this and other vaccines is unequivocally good news .
However , we should temper our expectations , because the vaccines need several weeks to begin having an effect .
This means that , unfortunately , even if an authorization comes immediately , the coronavirus vaccine will not be able to lend us much protection before the Christmas travel season , and we will have to take great responsibility for ourselves and for those around us .
As we travel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll still have to be mindful of how infectious COVID-19 is and who in our lives is at great risk , and act accordingly .
And policymaker should still pursue mitigation measures other than lockdowns , like rapid-testing .
With that said , news of these vaccines are tremendous developments , and a very welcome Christmas present for us and for the whole world .

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee concluded its Thursday meeting by recommending that a coronavirus vaccine developed by Pfizer be granted an emergency use authorization.
Another vaccine, developed by biotech company Moderna, is expected to be authorized soon. Both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines show 95% efficacy in preventing infections, which means the definitive end of the COVID-19 pandemic may be imminent.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
I, for one, eagerly await the chance to immunize myself—to both protect myself and to prevent myself from being able to contract and transmit the virus any further. And once that injection goes into my arm, I will be asking, “Please, may I have another in 21-28 days, per the dosing protocol?”
But even with impending approval of both vaccines, I—a young healthy individual at very low risk from COVID-19—will have to wait a little longer to get my immunization. Possibly until spring.
This is as it should be. As part of a wise vaccination policy, the initial doses will first go to where they will have the most benefit.
Those over 65 years of age continue to make up a relatively small portion of COVID-19 cases, but a disproportionately large proportion of mortality. Giving them first access to the protection of the coronavirus vaccine will have the greatest and most immediate benefit to the cause of saving lives from this virus.
Understandably, many people I’ve talked to have expressed concern with how fast these vaccines have been produced. But I have great confidence in the vaccines’ safety performance.
The coronavirus vaccine development process was sped up by taking out slack in all of the bureaucratic, nonclinical barriers to drug approval.
As Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, described it, “Both biomedical companies and federal officials recognized early on that the key to speeding up the effort was to ‘parallel process’ whenever and wherever possible, meaning processes that would normally take place sequentially were pursued simultaneously.”
In other words, Operation Warp Speed—the national initiative to fast-track the development of a coronavirus vaccine—accelerated the development process by cutting the slack while maintaining rigorous safety precautions.
In fact, participation in Operation Warp Speed required manufacturers to enroll at least 30,000 participants in the phase three trial—the final phase of clinical trials before drugs can be given to the public.
Although the phase three trial for Pfizer’s vaccine has not yet concluded, it already has data on more than 40,000 volunteers, approximately half of whom received the vaccine while the other half received a placebo to compare against and judge the vaccine’s efficacy.
Furthermore, the program requires a median follow-up time of two months for safety data. This means that half of the participants have been followed for two months or longer to watch for adverse effects of the vaccine.
While a very large proportion of participants experienced reactions to the vaccine, such as fatigue, headache, and fever, none of these adverse effects met the criteria for halting the trial. In the vaccine group of more than 21,000 participants, there were only four severe adverse events related to the vaccine, but these were transient.
That said, it is important to note that a very large proportion of participants experienced reactions, such as fatigue, headache, and fever. These types of reaction are normal and can be expected as a result of the body’s antibody response to the vaccine—this is how vaccines work.
Thus far, 170 of the study participants have contracted COVID-19 after receiving two injections of either the vaccine or the placebo. The vast majority of those, 168, were in the placebo group. Only eight of those who received the real vaccine contracted the virus. When comparing the two groups, the vaccine was shown to be 95% effective at preventing an infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Even with one dose, which is only half the vaccine regimen, 39 individuals in the vaccine group contracted COVID-19 compared to 82 in the placebo group—this corresponds to a 52% vaccine efficacy after only one dose.
Overall, these results are incredibly promising, and may definitively break the grip of the virus on the country—and not a moment too soon as the country is currently experiencing an explosion in the number of COVID-19 cases.
Even if there is an immediate approval given, the vaccine takes two doses over three weeks to create a maximal antibody response by the fourth week.
Thus, the vaccinations should begin to have a substantial positive effect on the COVID-19 numbers by mid-January.
For that, we should certainly rejoice. The expected approval of this and other vaccines is unequivocally good news.
However, we should temper our expectations, because the vaccines need several weeks to begin having an effect. This means that, unfortunately, even if an authorization comes immediately, the coronavirus vaccine will not be able to lend us much protection before the Christmas travel season, and we will have to take great responsibility for ourselves and for those around us.
As we travel to visit loved ones for the holidays, we’ll still have to be mindful of how infectious COVID-19 is and who in our lives is at great risk, and act accordingly. And policymakers should still pursue mitigation measures other than lockdowns, like rapid-testing.
With that said, news of these vaccines are tremendous developments, and a very welcome Christmas present for us and for the whole world.


dailysignal--2020-12-11--How Rapid-Result, at-Home Tests for COVID-19 Could Slash Infection Rate

Imagine a tool that could significantly decrease the spread of COVID-19 in a month , and maybe stop the coronavirus altogether in less than a year .
This tool would be significantly cheaper than imposing lockdowns and other restrictions , and provide an avenue for schools and businesses to reopen .
Imagine no further , because experts say that tool already exists and just needs to be produced .
Rapid COVID-19 tests for at-home use could be one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 , advocates say .
Self-tests for COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a way to give people tools to know if they are infectious so that they can make the right decisions on a daily basis , ” Dr. Michael Mina , an assistant professor of epidemiology and immunology at Harvard University ’ s T.H .
Chan School of Public Health , said Thursday during a Heritage Foundation panel event titled “ Rapid COVID Tests : A Cure for Lockdowns , a Complement to Vaccines.
” “ These tests can exist today .
We just have failed to produce them and put them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Mina , who has done extensive research on the patterns and immunological consequences of diseases .
Also speaking during the virtual event were Paul Romer , who won the Nobel Prize in economic sciences , and Doug Badger , a visiting fellow at Heritage who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush on health-related matters .
To manufacture enough self-administered tests for Americans to check their status regularly for six or seven months would cost about $ 10 billion , Mina estimated .
But what is needed right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to include “ specifically $ 1 billion in this next [ COVID-19 ] relief bill ” to cover manufacturing .
Although $ 1 billion may sound like a lot of money , it is only “ one five-thousandth of what we have spent already on this virus , or what it has cost us , ” he said .
If only half the nation ’ s population uses the tests and self-quarantines if positive , “ we will go from exponential growth , where we are right now in the outbreak , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And so … instead of going from 100 people to 400 people [ infected ] within a month , we would go from 100 people to 20.
” Ideally , Americans would use the small , paper-strip tests twice a week , the Harvard professor and medical doctor said .
To achieve this , the nation would have to manufacture between 10 million to 30 million tests a day .
Although Mina said he embraces all forms of testing for COVID-19 , the speed at which an individual can know his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors when considering a test ’ s ability to mitigate viral spread .
A test that won ’ t provide results for three days “ is a useless test , ” he said .
The self-tests he endorses are 98 % or 99 % accurate , Mina said .
Many in the medical community have opposed the home tests because they are not 100 % accurate , he said .
Opponents also warn that some will use a negative result as a pass to go out and party or ignore all COVID-19 precautions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans should not be kept from knowing their own health information .
And if individuals aren ’ t infectious , “ it doesn ’ t really matter what they do , ” said Romer , a co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel Prize in economic sciences and an economics professor at New York University .
“ But the evidence on college campuses actually shows that the net effect of testing is to make everybody more conservative.
” One way to incentivize individuals to self-quarantine if they get a positive test result would be to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from the government until they test negative , Romer suggested .
The home tests would not replace a vaccine or other precautions such as masks and social distancing , but should be seen as a “ very powerful adjunct to everything else that people are already doing , ” Mina said .
And , as Romer pointed out , it likely will take months for vaccines to be readily available to all Americans , and for some Americans to trust them .
In the meantime , rapid-response home tests will decrease the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Control and Prevention reporting a record high of 231,396 new COVID-19 cases Wednesday , The Heritage Foundation ’ s Badger put much of the onus on political leaders to take action and depart from a “ losing strategy.
” Former Vice President Joe Biden recently predicted that another 250,000 Americans could die before January “ because people aren ’ t paying attention , ” Badger said , adding that politicians have to take responsibility and be open to other options : So we are on sort of a failed policy course on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side , we are beginning to tell people , ‘ Well , it ’ s your fault this is happening.
’ So we are really at a juncture where it is absolutely essential that we change strategies .
And I think the first part of that is really necessary for political leaders , as well as public health officials , to begin to acknowledge , ‘ OK , guys , this is not working .
Are there alternatives ?
’ And until we begin to open that mindset , it ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change course .
Once political leaders recognize the need for a course correction , Badger said , they should stop thinking so much about the money needed to mitigate the damage from COVID-19 policies that failed and put those resources toward a winning strategy .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , recently has been vocal about the need for more widespread and regular testing , Badger said , but ultimately it is the job of Congress , other political leaders , and medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Doing the same thing over and over again is going to produce the same results , so we have to try something new , ” Badger said .

Imagine a tool that could significantly decrease the spread of COVID-19 in a month, and maybe stop the coronavirus altogether in less than a year.
This tool would be significantly cheaper than imposing lockdowns and other restrictions, and provide an avenue for schools and businesses to reopen.
Imagine no further, because experts say that tool already exists and just needs to be produced.
Rapid COVID-19 tests for at-home use could be one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, advocates say.
Self-tests for COVID-19 that can be done at home are “a way to give people tools to know if they are infectious so that they can make the right decisions on a daily basis,” Dr. Michael Mina, an assistant professor of epidemiology and immunology at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said Thursday during a Heritage Foundation panel event titled “Rapid COVID Tests: A Cure for Lockdowns, a Complement to Vaccines.”
“These tests can exist today. We just have failed to produce them and put them into the hands [of Americans],” said Mina, who has done extensive research on the patterns and immunological consequences of diseases.
Also speaking during the virtual event were Paul Romer, who won the Nobel Prize in economic sciences, and Doug Badger, a visiting fellow at Heritage who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush on health-related matters.
To manufacture enough self-administered tests for Americans to check their status regularly for six or seven months would cost about $10 billion, Mina estimated. But what is needed right now, he said, is for Congress to include “specifically $1 billion in this next [COVID-19] relief bill” to cover manufacturing.
Although $1 billion may sound like a lot of money, it is only “one five-thousandth of what we have spent already on this virus, or what it has cost us,” he said.
If only half the nation’s population uses the tests and self-quarantines if positive, “we will go from exponential growth, where we are right now in the outbreak, to exponential decline,” Mina projected. “And so … instead of going from 100 people to 400 people [infected] within a month, we would go from 100 people to 20.”
Ideally, Americans would use the small, paper-strip tests twice a week, the Harvard professor and medical doctor said. To achieve this, the nation would have to manufacture between 10 million to 30 million tests a day.
Although Mina said he embraces all forms of testing for COVID-19, the speed at which an individual can know his own results is one of the most important factors when considering a test’s ability to mitigate viral spread.
A test that won’t provide results for three days “is a useless test,” he said.
The self-tests he endorses are 98% or 99% accurate, Mina said.
Many in the medical community have opposed the home tests because they are not 100% accurate, he said. Opponents also warn that some will use a negative result as a pass to go out and party or ignore all COVID-19 precautions.
“A key thing holding back these tests is [the] Food and Drug Administration,” Marie Fishpaw, director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said in an email. The FDA “won’t approve the tests because they let Americans get results without necessarily telling public health officials.”
Mina argued, however, that Americans should not be kept from knowing their own health information.
And if individuals aren’t infectious, “it doesn’t really matter what they do,” said Romer, a co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel Prize in economic sciences and an economics professor at New York University. “But the evidence on college campuses actually shows that the net effect of testing is to make everybody more conservative.”
One way to incentivize individuals to self-quarantine if they get a positive test result would be to have them “qualify for wage replacement” from the government until they test negative, Romer suggested.
The home tests would not replace a vaccine or other precautions such as masks and social distancing, but should be seen as a “very powerful adjunct to everything else that people are already doing,” Mina said.
And, as Romer pointed out, it likely will take months for vaccines to be readily available to all Americans, and for some Americans to trust them. In the meantime, rapid-response home tests will decrease the spread.
With the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting a record high of 231,396 new COVID-19 cases Wednesday, The Heritage Foundation’s Badger put much of the onus on political leaders to take action and depart from a “losing strategy.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden recently predicted that another 250,000 Americans could die before January “because people aren’t paying attention,” Badger said, adding that politicians have to take responsibility and be open to other options:
So we are on sort of a failed policy course on the one side, and on the other side, we are beginning to tell people, ‘Well, it’s your fault this is happening.’ So we are really at a juncture where it is absolutely essential that we change strategies. And I think the first part of that is really necessary for political leaders, as well as public health officials, to begin to acknowledge, ‘OK, guys, this is not working. Are there alternatives?’ And until we begin to open that mindset, it’s going to be very difficult to get people to change course.
Once political leaders recognize the need for a course correction, Badger said, they should stop thinking so much about the money needed to mitigate the damage from COVID-19 policies that failed and put those resources toward a winning strategy.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently has been vocal about the need for more widespread and regular testing, Badger said, but ultimately it is the job of Congress, other political leaders, and medical regulators to produce rapid-response, at-home tests.
“Doing the same thing over and over again is going to produce the same results, so we have to try something new,” Badger said.
This piece was updated after initial publication to include a quote from Marie Fishpaw, director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.


dailysignal--2020-12-11--Coronavirus Vaccinations Could Begin Monday, Reach 50 Million Americans by February, HHS Secretary S

Coronavirus Vaccinations Could Begin Monday, Reach 50 Million Americans by February, HHS Secretary Says

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said that the first coronavirus vaccinations outside a clinical trial could begin as early as Monday .
Azar ’ s announcement follows a key Food and Drug Administration panel ’ s vote of confidence Thursday for Pfizer ’ s coronavirus vaccine , clearing the way for the agency to issue an emergency use authorization .
The FDA said authorization would be announced later Friday , and that it was communicating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Operation Warp Speed to ensure the most efficient distribution possible .
“ We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine … in the next couple days , ” Azar said on ABC ’ s “ Good Morning America.
” “ We will work with Pfizer to get that shipped out and so we could see people getting vaccinated Monday , Tuesday of next week , ” Azar said .
Public health officials have said that up to 20 million Americans could be vaccinated before 2021 , which Azar echoed Friday .
“ We ’ re looking at 20 million Americans being vaccinated in the next couple weeks .
Up to 50 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Azar said .
“ We believe we could have 100 million actual vaccinations in arm by the end of February.
” Though vaccinations may begin distribution only hours after the FDA grants emergency authorization , the first batches will go to front-line health care workers and long-term nursing home residents .
Azar said Tuesday that the vaccine will be widely available by the second quarter of 2021 .
Despite the vaccine announcements , public health officials have warned Americans that the coming months will likely be very challenging .
CDC Director Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , January , and February are going to be tough times ” due to the surge in coronavirus cases , hospitalizations , and deaths .
“ I actually believe they ’ re going to be the most difficult time in the public health history of this nation , largely because of the stress that ’ s going to be put on our health care system , ” Redfield said .
The coronavirus has infected over 15.5 million Americans and killed over 292,000 , according to a Johns Hopkins University database .
Wednesday was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far , with 3,157 deaths reported .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , email [ email protected ]

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said that the first coronavirus vaccinations outside a clinical trial could begin as early as Monday.
Azar’s announcement follows a key Food and Drug Administration panel’s vote of confidence Thursday for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine, clearing the way for the agency to issue an emergency use authorization.
The FDA said authorization would be announced later Friday, and that it was communicating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Operation Warp Speed to ensure the most efficient distribution possible.
“We should be seeing the authorization of this first vaccine … in the next couple days,” Azar said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
NEW: HHS Azar says FDA will proceed with emergency use authorization for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine and vaccinations could come as soon as Monday or Tuesday of next week. https://t.co/v1dsjMAvCK pic.twitter.com/48CGRJRTVs — Good Morning America (@GMA) December 11, 2020
“We will work with Pfizer to get that shipped out and so we could see people getting vaccinated Monday, Tuesday of next week,” Azar said.
Public health officials have said that up to 20 million Americans could be vaccinated before 2021, which Azar echoed Friday.
“We’re looking at 20 million Americans being vaccinated in the next couple weeks. Up to 50 million total by the end of January,” Azar said. “We believe we could have 100 million actual vaccinations in arm by the end of February.”
HHS Sec. Azar tells @GStephanopoulos, “We’re looking at 20 million Americans being vaccinated just in the next coming weeks. Up to 50 million total by the end of January…” https://t.co/v1dsjMAvCK pic.twitter.com/xPsZZC9rjP — Good Morning America (@GMA) December 11, 2020
Though vaccinations may begin distribution only hours after the FDA grants emergency authorization, the first batches will go to front-line health care workers and long-term nursing home residents. Azar said Tuesday that the vaccine will be widely available by the second quarter of 2021.
Despite the vaccine announcements, public health officials have warned Americans that the coming months will likely be very challenging. CDC Director Robert Redfield said last week that “December, January, and February are going to be tough times” due to the surge in coronavirus cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.
“I actually believe they’re going to be the most difficult time in the public health history of this nation, largely because of the stress that’s going to be put on our health care system,” Redfield said.
The coronavirus has infected over 15.5 million Americans and killed over 292,000, according to a Johns Hopkins University database. Wednesday was the deadliest day of the pandemic so far, with 3,157 deaths reported.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-12-14--How Media Bias and ‘Woke Identity’ Have Infiltrated Newsrooms

It is no secret that the media leans left .
From the ways in which journalists choose to report on critical issues , to the questions they decide to ask political leaders on different sides of the aisle , media bias is undeniable .
CNN contributor Mary Katherine Ham and Fox News contributor and radio host Guy Benson are co-authors of “ End of Discussion : How the Left ’ s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate , Manipulates Voters , and Makes America Less Free ( and Fun ) .
” Last week , they assessed the media at The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Club Meeting .
Today , we share their perspectives on The Daily Signal Podcast .
Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript .
Rob Bluey : Can you reflect back on 2020 and share what you think are some of the most egregious examples of media bias ?
Mary Katharine Ham : Oh , Rob , there ’ s so many to choose from .
It ’ s hard to say .
I think one that stood out to me and that is a pattern that has repeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the different way in which protests on the left are covered vs. protests on the right .
And you saw this diametric juxtaposed to each other this summer with protests against lockdowns on the right , mostly , and then protests on the other side , [ Black Lives Matter ] , criminal justice reform .
The argument when the lockdown protests happened at the very beginning of summer was these people are endangering the entire country .
I mean , just being out here , even driving your car in a circle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a problem , right ?
And then the other side protested and suddenly the sacrosanct First Amendment , right to gather and profess one ’ s grievances and peaceably assemble , was a-OK and not a danger to anyone .
All I wished was that maybe we could just recognize this as a First Amendment right that shouldn ’ t be socially shamed selectively , depending on which side you like .
So that was annoying .
Bluey : That ’ s a good example .
Guy , how about you ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s all so tough .
I did see a tweet from an MSNBC anchor this week where she was celebrating the fact that [ former Vice President ] Joe Biden declined to answer a question .
So I guess he was asked if he had met with [ Senate Majority Leader ] Mitch McConnell yet , and he wouldn ’ t say so .
And she ’ s like , “ How refreshing that he didn ’ t lie , he just stonewalled us.
” Benson : May I have another ?
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like .
Again , the media is going to go back into sort of vacation/hibernation mode .
I think what I ’ ve seen this year on media bias that has actually concerned me more than anything—beyond just the media overall supporting Democrats , being Democrats , helping Democrats—is the internal machinations within newsrooms where journalistic fundamentals are now being subsumed by woke identity .
And we saw it , I think the most prominent example that some people at home might remember was [ Sen. ] Tom Cotton in The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ended up being demoted or fired from their positions for allowing a sitting senator to write words in The New York Times supporting a position that a majority of Americans agreed with , mind you .
That was a high-profile one .
Another one that I would just bring to your attention was in Philadelphia where the executive editor of the largest newspaper in Philadelphia was thrown out of his position because he approved a headline that was about the destruction of property during all the riots and the headline was , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was deemed so egregiously offensive that this man who had been at the paper for 20 years , had led them to a Pulitzer Prize , was hounded out of his position after these Zoom meetings where staffers were crying and rending their garments and saying that they felt physically unsafe at the newspaper .
And we ’ re seeing now facts—who , what , where , when , and why—if they conflict with certain high pieties of the woke left , that is what now controls , especially the younger elements of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break out inside newsrooms , and in some cases the no journalism side is winning .
So that goes far beyond just right , left , conservative , liberal , it ’ s within like this intra-left fight and the pro-factual side in some key cases is losing .
Bluey : This is one of the reasons I think that many conservatives have gravitated to create their own outlets like we have at The Heritage Foundation with The Daily Signal .
Both of you have been involved in conservative media for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state of media today and what conservatives can do to either fight back against what we ’ re seeing in newsrooms , or maybe take an alternative approach altogether ?
Ham : From my point of view , when you ’ re in a mainstream media outlet , as I am , conformity just is a problem .
And if you have a bunch of people in your circle who all believe the same thing , then you are going to be more inclined to cover things from that point of view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more inclined to sort of bend to pressure , should all the people who are in your peer group and agree with you say , “ Well , you ’ re a bad person if you think this particular thing.
” I ’ m happy to be that person on every panel , that ’ s my specialty .
But I do think the diversity of thought in any group on a college campus , in your family , in your community , being able to have those discussions is really important .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was noting , it ’ s beyond just sort of a left-leaning disposition .
There is a progression here into sort of a demand that everyone emote on the same level about an issue .
I have been in situations where I ’ m just trying to analyze an issue and that is taken as opposition to a point of view .
When in fact I ’ m just analyzing the politics of the situation , because I ’ m not emoting in the way that is demanded .
And I think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ’ t all , not only believe the same thing , but believe it at the same pitch , or else we are just all the same person .
And that is not a fair treatment of any news story , or I don ’ t think a mature and professional way to approach it , but that is increasingly what I see .
Benson : I mean , I think that for those of us who are on the center right in journalism or the commentary business , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the slack , as we did for eight years under [ President ] Barack Obama .
Under a Biden administration , much of the press , I mean , it ’ s sort of remarkable to see , Mary Katharine , like the tone of some of this coverage where it ’ s just relief , right ?
There ’ s this cathartic coverage of like , “ Oh , finally , the good people are back in charge.
” Ham : “ Isn ’ t it nice to cover someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fantastic.
” Benson : It ’ s just like , “ Our people are back in , we can finally take a nap.
” And I think that they intend to do that .
They ’ ll go through the motions and do some coverage .
I know The New York Times has a few stories about potential conflicts of interest in the incoming potential Cabinet and lefties are going bonkers that they ’ re even writing those stories because you ’ re not supposed to say or write anything that hurts the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in terms of accountability , I think it ’ s back to a different posture for the right-leaning media .
And I think our North Star has to be telling the truth , telling the truth when it is a pleasant truth for people on our side , telling the truth when it ’ s a less pleasant truth for people on our own side , because to the extent that many , many , many Americans , millions of them , live in their own cocoons and only hear their truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lefty thing , to be like , “ My truth is this.
” Benson : And I think our job is to help shine a light on and expound upon and expose the truth .
Bluey : It ’ s so true .
I mean , it ’ s one of those things that when we started The Daily Signal way back when , six years ago , we made sure— Benson : Has it been six years ?
Bluey : Six years .
We made sure that that was one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mary Katharine , since you brought up CNN and your position there , I want to ask you , at a time when so many conservatives have tuned out CNN , why do you think it ’ s important to have a conservative voice still there ?
And what ’ s it like behind the scenes ?
What can you share with our audience today ?
Ham : I mean , having a voice [ at CNN ] is why I do the job and it ’ s why I ’ ve always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that my career has shown—it was when I started it in my mid-20s , arguing with Bill O ’ Reilly of all people—that I have never shied away from an argument .
I like debate .
I enjoy it .
I don ’ t want to be somewhere where everyone agrees with me .
As I was just saying , I love to go to college campuses .
You could say , I like a hostile room .
I like to win over a hostile room .
And so I— Benson : Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
You ’ re wrong .
Ham : That would be perfect .
It ’ d be fantastic if you ’ re meaner than me right now .
So , I like going into the situations .
I have to do it every night when I put my kids to bed , they ’ re very hostile .
Don ’ t want to give in at all .
Benson : Especially one of them .
Ham : But I do think it ’ s worthwhile to communicate with different audiences .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I loved working there .
And then it ’ s funny , there are some people who think that I just haven ’ t worked for the last five years because they never changed the channel .
Ham : Oh no , no , I didn ’ t just take a hiatus , I ’ ve just been somewhere else .
But I do think it ’ s worth reaching a different audience .
And as I joke , like , I went from Fox to CNN and then I was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate mail is so diverse , it comes from so many directions , but I do think it is worthwhile .
And I like to sort of , if I can , mess with people ’ s bubbles a little bit , and to the extent that I ’ m able to do that in that place , even when it ’ s tough and when I can speak some truth sometimes when I feel like it ’ s flying by some people , I enjoy the opportunity to do that .
Bluey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d be remiss if I didn ’ t ask you about Fox News , because there were also some conservatives who were tuning out Fox , going to places like Newsmax .
What ’ s your message to them who , they may not necessarily agree with all of the actions on Election Night , calling Arizona early , but you have a successful program there , you ’ ve had a lot of success over the years .
What ’ s your message that you want to share with them tonight ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we ’ re conservatives , we believe in competition , right ?
And so we ’ re not afraid of competition at Fox .
We welcome competition .
I remember when Fox was growing and becoming huge early on , CNN , like Larry King , it ’ s like in a football game where you put bulletin board material up of like how you were dismissed or dissed by the other team or someone in the media .
Larry King said some very dismissive things about like , “ Oh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hannity ?
” Like , “ We ’ re going to eat their lunch.
” And then obviously that— Benson : Didn ’ t work out so well for them over the longer term .
So I think it would be a mistake for anyone at Fox to assume that we are entitled to any audience and that they shouldn ’ t ever go anywhere else .
I would say that I ’ m extremely proud to work at Fox .
I think that we do a really extraordinary job .
I see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people are frustrated .
You see some stuff out there like , “ Oh , it ’ s indistinguishable from CNN now.
” I ’ m like , fact check , like in the 8 p.m. hour , if you can ’ t tell the difference between Tucker Carlson and Chris Cuomo , then I don ’ t know what to tell you , right ?
But we have some very strong opinion voices who do not shy away from telling you exactly how they feel .
We also have a really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes what the news people are reporting is not simpatico with what many of our viewers and opinion people believe .
And trying to thread that needle is an interesting balance .
I sort of straddle those two worlds at Fox , but I think we ’ re working through it and we ’ ll see what shakes out over the next couple of weeks , but we ’ re extremely grateful for everyone who ’ s watched us for years and we hope they will continue to watch us for years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we care about the country .
Rob Bluey : Competition is a good thing—it makes us all better .
I want to thank both of you .
Mary Katharine is a Heritage Foundation alum , Guy is a longtime friend of the organization .
We appreciate the work that you do to bring credibility and integrity to the media .
Thank you both .

It is no secret that the media leans left. From the ways in which journalists choose to report on critical issues, to the questions they decide to ask political leaders on different sides of the aisle, media bias is undeniable.
CNN contributor Mary Katherine Ham and Fox News contributor and radio host Guy Benson are co-authors of “End of Discussion: How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun).” Last week, they assessed the media at The Heritage Foundation’s annual President’s Club Meeting. Today, we share their perspectives on The Daily Signal Podcast.
Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.
Rob Bluey: Can you reflect back on 2020 and share what you think are some of the most egregious examples of media bias?
Mary Katharine Ham: Oh, Rob, there’s so many to choose from. It’s hard to say.
I think one that stood out to me and that is a pattern that has repeated itself throughout my career in journalism is the different way in which protests on the left are covered vs. protests on the right.
And you saw this diametric juxtaposed to each other this summer with protests against lockdowns on the right, mostly, and then protests on the other side, [Black Lives Matter], criminal justice reform.
The argument when the lockdown protests happened at the very beginning of summer was these people are endangering the entire country. I mean, just being out here, even driving your car in a circle around city hall and honking your horn is a problem, right?
And then the other side protested and suddenly the sacrosanct First Amendment, right to gather and profess one’s grievances and peaceably assemble, was a-OK and not a danger to anyone.
All I wished was that maybe we could just recognize this as a First Amendment right that shouldn’t be socially shamed selectively, depending on which side you like. So that was annoying.
Bluey: That’s a good example. Guy, how about you?
Guy Benson: Oh, it’s all so tough. I did see a tweet from an MSNBC anchor this week where she was celebrating the fact that [former Vice President] Joe Biden declined to answer a question.
So I guess he was asked if he had met with [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell yet, and he wouldn’t say so. And she’s like, “How refreshing that he didn’t lie, he just stonewalled us.”
Ham: Thank you, sir.
Benson: May I have another? This is what four years are going to look like. Again, the media is going to go back into sort of vacation/hibernation mode.
I think what I’ve seen this year on media bias that has actually concerned me more than anything—beyond just the media overall supporting Democrats, being Democrats, helping Democrats—is the internal machinations within newsrooms where journalistic fundamentals are now being subsumed by woke identity.
And we saw it, I think the most prominent example that some people at home might remember was [Sen.] Tom Cotton in The New York Times and that whole mess where people ended up being demoted or fired from their positions for allowing a sitting senator to write words in The New York Times supporting a position that a majority of Americans agreed with, mind you. That was a high-profile one.
Another one that I would just bring to your attention was in Philadelphia where the executive editor of the largest newspaper in Philadelphia was thrown out of his position because he approved a headline that was about the destruction of property during all the riots and the headline was, “Buildings Matter, Too.”
This was deemed so egregiously offensive that this man who had been at the paper for 20 years, had led them to a Pulitzer Prize, was hounded out of his position after these Zoom meetings where staffers were crying and rending their garments and saying that they felt physically unsafe at the newspaper.
And we’re seeing now facts—who, what, where, when, and why—if they conflict with certain high pieties of the woke left, that is what now controls, especially the younger elements of newsrooms.
These civil wars are trying to break out inside newsrooms, and in some cases the no journalism side is winning. So that goes far beyond just right, left, conservative, liberal, it’s within like this intra-left fight and the pro-factual side in some key cases is losing.
Bluey: This is one of the reasons I think that many conservatives have gravitated to create their own outlets like we have at The Heritage Foundation with The Daily Signal.
Both of you have been involved in conservative media for many years. What is your view on the state of media today and what conservatives can do to either fight back against what we’re seeing in newsrooms, or maybe take an alternative approach altogether?
Ham: From my point of view, when you’re in a mainstream media outlet, as I am, conformity just is a problem.
And if you have a bunch of people in your circle who all believe the same thing, then you are going to be more inclined to cover things from that point of view and, as Guy was saying, more inclined to sort of bend to pressure, should all the people who are in your peer group and agree with you say, “Well, you’re a bad person if you think this particular thing.”
I’m happy to be that person on every panel, that’s my specialty. But I do think the diversity of thought in any group on a college campus, in your family, in your community, being able to have those discussions is really important. And we have advanced, as Guy was noting, it’s beyond just sort of a left-leaning disposition.
There is a progression here into sort of a demand that everyone emote on the same level about an issue.
I have been in situations where I’m just trying to analyze an issue and that is taken as opposition to a point of view. When in fact I’m just analyzing the politics of the situation, because I’m not emoting in the way that is demanded.
And I think that demand is poison within media coverage because we can’t all, not only believe the same thing, but believe it at the same pitch, or else we are just all the same person. And that is not a fair treatment of any news story, or I don’t think a mature and professional way to approach it, but that is increasingly what I see.
Bluey: Guy?
Benson: I mean, I think that for those of us who are on the center right in journalism or the commentary business, we’re going to have to pick up some of the slack, as we did for eight years under [President] Barack Obama.
Under a Biden administration, much of the press, I mean, it’s sort of remarkable to see, Mary Katharine, like the tone of some of this coverage where it’s just relief, right? There’s this cathartic coverage of like, “Oh, finally, the good people are back in charge.”
Ham: “Isn’t it nice to cover someone we like, guys? This is fantastic.”
Benson: It’s just like, “Our people are back in, we can finally take a nap.” And I think that they intend to do that.
They’ll go through the motions and do some coverage. I know The New York Times has a few stories about potential conflicts of interest in the incoming potential Cabinet and lefties are going bonkers that they’re even writing those stories because you’re not supposed to say or write anything that hurts the tribe, at all, ever.
But in terms of accountability, I think it’s back to a different posture for the right-leaning media. And I think our North Star has to be telling the truth, telling the truth when it is a pleasant truth for people on our side, telling the truth when it’s a less pleasant truth for people on our own side, because to the extent that many, many, many Americans, millions of them, live in their own cocoons and only hear their truth, that’s sort of a lefty thing, to be like, “My truth is this.”
Ham: “We’re all adapting.”
Benson: No, there’s the truth.
Ham: Yes.
Benson: And I think our job is to help shine a light on and expound upon and expose the truth.
Bluey: It’s so true. I mean, it’s one of those things that when we started The Daily Signal way back when, six years ago, we made sure—
Benson: Has it been six years?
Bluey: Six years. We made sure that that was one of the guiding principles for us.
Now, Mary Katharine, since you brought up CNN and your position there, I want to ask you, at a time when so many conservatives have tuned out CNN, why do you think it’s important to have a conservative voice still there? And what’s it like behind the scenes? What can you share with our audience today?
Ham: I mean, having a voice [at CNN] is why I do the job and it’s why I’ve always done the job. And I hope that my career has shown—it was when I started it in my mid-20s, arguing with Bill O’Reilly of all people—that I have never shied away from an argument.
I like debate. I enjoy it. I don’t want to be somewhere where everyone agrees with me. As I was just saying, I love to go to college campuses. You could say, I like a hostile room. I like to win over a hostile room. And so I—
Benson: Should I be mean to you right now? You’re wrong.
Ham: That would be perfect. It’d be fantastic if you’re meaner than me right now.
So, I like going into the situations. I have to do it every night when I put my kids to bed, they’re very hostile. Don’t want to give in at all.
Benson: Especially one of them.
Ham: But I do think it’s worthwhile to communicate with different audiences. And I was at Fox for a long time and I loved working there. And then it’s funny, there are some people who think that I just haven’t worked for the last five years because they never changed the channel.
Bluey: Sure.
Ham: Oh no, no, I didn’t just take a hiatus, I’ve just been somewhere else. But I do think it’s worth reaching a different audience. And as I joke, like, I went from Fox to CNN and then I was a Trump critical conservative on CNN. My hate mail is so diverse, it comes from so many directions, but I do think it is worthwhile.
And I like to sort of, if I can, mess with people’s bubbles a little bit, and to the extent that I’m able to do that in that place, even when it’s tough and when I can speak some truth sometimes when I feel like it’s flying by some people, I enjoy the opportunity to do that.
Bluey: Well, Guy, I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask you about Fox News, because there were also some conservatives who were tuning out Fox, going to places like Newsmax.
What’s your message to them who, they may not necessarily agree with all of the actions on Election Night, calling Arizona early, but you have a successful program there, you’ve had a lot of success over the years. What’s your message that you want to share with them tonight?
Benson: First of all, I think we’re conservatives, we believe in competition, right? And so we’re not afraid of competition at Fox. We welcome competition.
I remember when Fox was growing and becoming huge early on, CNN, like Larry King, it’s like in a football game where you put bulletin board material up of like how you were dismissed or dissed by the other team or someone in the media. Larry King said some very dismissive things about like, “Oh, these upstarts, whose [Sean] Hannity?” Like, “We’re going to eat their lunch.” And then obviously that—
Bluey: Look what happened.
Benson: Didn’t work out so well for them over the longer term. So I think it would be a mistake for anyone at Fox to assume that we are entitled to any audience and that they shouldn’t ever go anywhere else. I would say that I’m extremely proud to work at Fox. I think that we do a really extraordinary job.
I see some people are—look, people are heated, people are frustrated. You see some stuff out there like, “Oh, it’s indistinguishable from CNN now.” I’m like, fact check, like in the 8 p.m. hour, if you can’t tell the difference between Tucker Carlson and Chris Cuomo, then I don’t know what to tell you, right?
But we have some very strong opinion voices who do not shy away from telling you exactly how they feel.
We also have a really robust news-gathering operation and organization. And sometimes what the news people are reporting is not simpatico with what many of our viewers and opinion people believe. And trying to thread that needle is an interesting balance.
I sort of straddle those two worlds at Fox, but I think we’re working through it and we’ll see what shakes out over the next couple of weeks, but we’re extremely grateful for everyone who’s watched us for years and we hope they will continue to watch us for years to come because we work really hard and we care about the country.
Rob Bluey: Competition is a good thing—it makes us all better. I want to thank both of you. Mary Katharine is a Heritage Foundation alum, Guy is a longtime friend of the organization. We appreciate the work that you do to bring credibility and integrity to the media. Thank you both.


dailysignal--2020-12-15--3 Things to Know As 2020 Election Challenge Moves to Congress

After their party ’ s presidential nominee lost in the Electoral College , some House members lined up to object to and challenge the results during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes .
House Democrats made 11 objections .
In each case , then-outgoing Vice President Joe Biden–presiding over the session in his role as Senate president—asked if the objection had a Senate sponsor .
Then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said she didn ’ t encourage the objection , but would “ support ” the objections from her caucus .
Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator join the challenge against certifying the results .
With no senators backing the objections , members of Congress counted the votes , and Biden said , “ It ’ s over , ” gaveling the official end of the 2016 election with a victory , giving it to President Donald Trump .
Fast-forward nearly four years to Monday , and the Electoral College voted to make Biden president , an apparent victory over Trump in the 2020 election .
However , a joint session of Congress still will have to certify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last long-shot challenge for the Trump campaign .
Still , Trump hasn ’ t conceded the election .
Rep. Mo Brooks , R-Ala. , pledged to make objections in counting the battleground states of Pennsylvania , Georgia , Arizona , Wisconsin , and Nevada .
Objections from House members—as happened in 2016—have become almost routine when Republican presidents were elected , as was the case with George W. Bush after the 2000 and 2004 elections .
But in 2021 , the tables will turn , and there likely will be some other differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What Could Be Different This Time ?
It appears likely that Brooks will have at least two Senate sponsors , as required by law for the objection to be debated .
Republican Sens .
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky indicated they were open to sponsoring the challenges .
By the time Congress votes on the certification , the number of House and Senate Republicans ready to challenge the Electoral College count could expand .
More than 100 House Republicans joined the Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to hear on Friday .
Brooks tweeted : “ No question it ’ s an uphill climb to do what is necessary to protect the sanctity of America ’ s election system .
But we never know who will win these political fights until we fight them .
I ’ m going to fight !
” Notably , 2016 didn ’ t set any new precedents .
Past disputes were brought during the counting .
What will be different this year is the loser of the Electoral College vote hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is frequently compared with the 2000 election dispute .
Then-Vice President Al Gore , a Democrat , conceded the 2000 election to Bush after the Supreme Court ruled against his campaign ’ s efforts to win Florida .
The Electoral College voted for Bush .
However , more than a dozen House Democrats made 20 separate objections during the joint session on Jan. 6 , 2001 .
Gore , as vice president , presided over the session , each time asking for a Senate sponsor and each time receiving none .
He gaveled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the winner .
2 .
How Does It Work ?
Now that the electors have voted to give Biden 306 electoral votes to Trump ’ s 232 votes , the states have until Dec. 23 to submit their electors ’ votes to Congress .
Congress is scheduled to convene to count the votes in a joint session Jan. 6 .
As Biden did four years ago , Vice President Mike Pence , in his role as Senate president , in January will preside over the counting .
The objections procedure is based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objection must be declared in writing by a House member and signed by at least one senator for any particular state as an attempt to prevent certification .
As was the case in past years , an objection requires sponsorship from both chambers .
If an objection is filed with support from at least one member from each chamber , then the proceedings would stop and both the House and the Senate would be required to debate the objection for two hours .
A Republican-controlled Senate and a Democrat-controlled House would have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this seems highly unlikely now , it does potentially buy time for the Trump campaign legal team to produce more evidence of alleged election fraud , whether that ’ s actual voter fraud or whether a jurisdiction obeyed the law regarding election administration .
The Trump campaign has made challenges on both fronts .
If the House and Senate agree to toss out enough electoral votes to reduce Biden ’ s tally below the 270-vote threshold needed to win , the presidential election could then potentially be thrown to the House of Representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , presuming the current Electoral College vote holds , Pence would play a role similar to that of then-Vice Presidents Dan Quayle in 1993 and Walter Mondale in 1981 , by certifying the defeat of his own ticket .
Pence would declare the winner of the election after the counting concludes .
3 .
Have Senators Ever Signed on Before ?
Although objection from House members is routine , Senate sponsorship is not .
Since the law was passed in 1887 , only twice has a senator joined a House member , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1968 , Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey and independent candidate George Wallace , a rare third-party candidate to win some electoral votes .
In 1969 , then-Rep. James O ’ Hara , D-Mich. , and then-Sen. Edmund S. Muskie , D-Maine , who had been Humphrey ’ s vice presidential running mate , objected in writing to counting the vote of an elector from North Carolina , who had voted for Wallace even though Nixon had won the state .
Both the House and Senate debated the objection and voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted 58 to 33 against the objection and the House voted 228 to 170 against it .
At the time , the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats .
When the joint session resumed , the challenged electoral vote was counted for Wallace , who won a total of 46 electoral votes after carrying five states .
North Carolina did not have a law preventing so-called “ faithless ” electors .
The Supreme Court in June upheld the constitutionality of states imposing penalties on faithless electors .
During a joint session of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones , D-Ohio , and then-Sen. Barbara Boxer , D-Calif. , objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes .
Both chambers withdrew from the joint session to consider the objection .
The House and Senate , in separate votes , each rejected the objection .
The Senate voted 74-1 against the challenge , while the House voted 267-31 against it .
At the time , Republicans controlled both the House and Senate .

After their party’s presidential nominee lost in the Electoral College, some House members lined up to object to and challenge the results during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes.
House Democrats made 11 objections. In each case, then-outgoing Vice President Joe Biden—presiding over the session in his role as Senate president—asked if the objection had a Senate sponsor.
Then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she didn’t encourage the objection, but would “support” the objections from her caucus. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., demanded a senator join the challenge against certifying the results.
With no senators backing the objections, members of Congress counted the votes, and Biden said, “It’s over,” gaveling the official end of the 2016 election with a victory, giving it to President Donald Trump.
Fast-forward nearly four years to Monday, and the Electoral College voted to make Biden president, an apparent victory over Trump in the 2020 election. However, a joint session of Congress still will have to certify the votes, in what will be the last long-shot challenge for the Trump campaign. Still, Trump hasn’t conceded the election.
It’s official, folks. Tune in as I deliver remarks on today’s electoral college vote certification and the strength and resilience of our democracy. https://t.co/Qp2c92mYUV — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 15, 2020
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., pledged to make objections in counting the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada.
Objections from House members—as happened in 2016—have become almost routine when Republican presidents were elected, as was the case with George W. Bush after the 2000 and 2004 elections. But in 2021, the tables will turn, and there likely will be some other differences beyond just party affiliation.
1. What Could Be Different This Time?
It appears likely that Brooks will have at least two Senate sponsors, as required by law for the objection to be debated.
Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky indicated they were open to sponsoring the challenges.
LEADERSHIP? Who will be first US Senator to join @RepMoBrooks in objecting to Electoral College votes from compromised elections? Call and ask your Senators what their position is on the compromised elections in PA, MI, GA, WI, AZ, NV. 202-224-3121. @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/gvZWc7U80S — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) December 14, 2020
By the time Congress votes on the certification, the number of House and Senate Republicans ready to challenge the Electoral College count could expand. More than 100 House Republicans joined the Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, which the Supreme Court declined to hear on Friday.
Brooks tweeted: “No question it’s an uphill climb to do what is necessary to protect the sanctity of America’s election system. But we never know who will win these political fights until we fight them. I’m going to fight!”
No question it's an uphill climb to do what is necessary to protect the sanctity of America’s election system. But, we never know who will win these political fights until we fight them. I’m going to fight! Watch my interview on @FoxNews! pic.twitter.com/6ZYlXTsLAq — Mo Brooks (@RepMoBrooks) December 6, 2020
Notably, 2016 didn’t set any new precedents. Past disputes were brought during the counting. What will be different this year is the loser of the Electoral College vote hasn’t conceded the election.
“Why did the Swing States stop counting in the middle of the night?” @MariaBartiromo Because they waited to find out how many ballots they had to produce in order to steal the Rigged Election. They were so far behind that they needed time, & a fake “water main break”, to recover! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 14, 2020
The 2020 postelection is frequently compared with the 2000 election dispute.
Then-Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat, conceded the 2000 election to Bush after the Supreme Court ruled against his campaign’s efforts to win Florida. The Electoral College voted for Bush.
However, more than a dozen House Democrats made 20 separate objections during the joint session on Jan. 6, 2001. Gore, as vice president, presided over the session, each time asking for a Senate sponsor and each time receiving none. He gaveled out the session and certified Bush as the winner.
2. How Does It Work?
Now that the electors have voted to give Biden 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232 votes, the states have until Dec. 23 to submit their electors’ votes to Congress. Congress is scheduled to convene to count the votes in a joint session Jan. 6.
As Biden did four years ago, Vice President Mike Pence, in his role as Senate president, in January will preside over the counting.
The objections procedure is based on a law passed in 1887. An objection must be declared in writing by a House member and signed by at least one senator for any particular state as an attempt to prevent certification. As was the case in past years, an objection requires sponsorship from both chambers.
If an objection is filed with support from at least one member from each chamber, then the proceedings would stop and both the House and the Senate would be required to debate the objection for two hours. A Republican-controlled Senate and a Democrat-controlled House would have to agree on disregarding a state.
While this seems highly unlikely now, it does potentially buy time for the Trump campaign legal team to produce more evidence of alleged election fraud, whether that’s actual voter fraud or whether a jurisdiction obeyed the law regarding election administration. The Trump campaign has made challenges on both fronts.
If the House and Senate agree to toss out enough electoral votes to reduce Biden’s tally below the 270-vote threshold needed to win, the presidential election could then potentially be thrown to the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824.
However, presuming the current Electoral College vote holds, Pence would play a role similar to that of then-Vice Presidents Dan Quayle in 1993 and Walter Mondale in 1981, by certifying the defeat of his own ticket. Pence would declare the winner of the election after the counting concludes.
3. Have Senators Ever Signed on Before?
Although objection from House members is routine, Senate sponsorship is not. Since the law was passed in 1887, only twice has a senator joined a House member, according to the Congressional Research Service.
In 1968, Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey and independent candidate George Wallace, a rare third-party candidate to win some electoral votes.
In 1969, then-Rep. James O’Hara, D-Mich., and then-Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, D-Maine, who had been Humphrey’s vice presidential running mate, objected in writing to counting the vote of an elector from North Carolina, who had voted for Wallace even though Nixon had won the state.
Both the House and Senate debated the objection and voted separately to reject it. The Senate voted 58 to 33 against the objection and the House voted 228 to 170 against it. At the time, the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats.
When the joint session resumed, the challenged electoral vote was counted for Wallace, who won a total of 46 electoral votes after carrying five states.
North Carolina did not have a law preventing so-called faithless electors. The Supreme Court in June upheld the constitutionality of states imposing penalties on faithless electors.
In 2005, Democrats alleged voting irregularities in Ohio.
During a joint session of Congress that year, then-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, and then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., objected in writing to the Ohio electoral votes.
Both chambers withdrew from the joint session to consider the objection. The House and Senate, in separate votes, each rejected the objection. The Senate voted 74-1 against the challenge, while the House voted 267-31 against it. At the time, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.


dailysignal--2020-12-14--Leftists Are Upset With the Ongoing Presidential Transition. Let’s Look Back at How They Behaved in

Leftists Are Upset With the Ongoing Presidential Transition. Let’s Look Back at How They Behaved in 2016.

With so much pearl-clutching by the left and the media over delays and disruptions of the ongoing presidential transition , it helps to put things in perspective by reviewing how things went for President-elect Donald Trump during his transition period , starting from Election Day 2016 to his inauguration on Jan. 20 , 2017 .
Before and during Trump ’ s transition period , he and his campaign were under investigation by President Barack Obama ’ s FBI based on the baseless Russia election conspiracy .
Just two weeks before Trump ’ s inauguration , with Obama ’ s blessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump in New York to inform him of the “ salacious ” details of the so-called Steele Dossier ( a collection of fabricated nonsense financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign ) .
But the purpose of Comey ’ s briefing was not to inform or enlighten Trump , but rather to gather information on him for the ongoing sham investigation known as “ Crossfire Hurricane.
” After Comey told Trump about the bogus dossier , he dashed off to a waiting FBI vehicle where he had arranged to have a classified laptop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the memo about the Trump briefing while being driven to the FBI ’ s building in New York , where he scurried to a secure room to gab with the Crossfire Hurricane team waiting back at FBI headquarters in Washington .
Nothing says “ smooth transition ” like gaslighting the president-elect and reporting your impressions to FBI headquarters , right ?
Incoming presidents traditionally are given leeway to pick their Cabinet officials .
That ’ s supposed to be the norm—the president was elected by the people , and therefore should be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the executive branch .
After Obama ’ s election , Senate Republicans—then in the minority—voted for Obama ’ s Cabinet nominees in large numbers .
Top nominees such as Hillary Clinton for secretary of state , Eric Holder for attorney general , and Peter Orszag for director of the Office of Management and Budget , were confirmed 94-2 , 75-21 , and by unanimous consent , respectively .
That tradition ended after Trump was elected .
Trump ’ s nominees for secretary of state , Rex Tillerson ; attorney general , Jeff Sessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Management and Budget , Mick Mulvaney , squeaked by their confirmation votes with 56-43 , 52-47 , and 51-49 , respectively .
A collective total of only five “ yea ” votes were cast by Democrats for those three nominees ( three of the five votes coming from Sen. Joe Manchin , D-W.Va. ) .
But for the fact that Republicans controlled the Senate by a razor-thin majority , Trump would have begun his term without these crucial Cabinet officials .
Rather than give deference to the president ’ s Cabinet nominees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the get-go .
Trump has been criticized in the press for using the postelection months at the White House to cement his legacy—implementing regulations , appointing allies to advisory boards , auctioning off drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge , etc .
The Washington Post is unhappy with these actions , scribbling that “ the whirlwind of activities has bucked tradition of past presidents who have deferred on major policy actions during the lame-duck period.
” The Post and other Democrats have a short memory .
If they ’ d only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the 2016 election it would be clear that Trump has plenty of precedent to rely upon .
Those all sound like “ major policy actions , ” don ’ t they ?
If Trump is “ bucking ” the tradition of past presidents , as the Post alleges , it must be presidents from the past other than Obama .
Should Trump sit idly by instead of cementing his legacy ?
Should Senate Republicans give a Biden administration ’ s Cabinet nominees more deference than Democrats gave Trump ’ s nominees in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a special counsel ) end his probe into the origins of the FBI ’ s ridiculous Crossfire Hurricane investigation ?
A case can be made that Trump and Senate Republicans should treat the Democrats ’ past behavior as water under the bridge .
Be the bigger political party , as it were .
Perhaps that ’ s what ’ s best for the country .
Time will tell , but it ’ s unlikely that former Vice President Joe Biden will suffer the same shoddy treatment that Trump got during his presidential transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good case that it ’ s the transition Biden would deserve .

With so much pearl-clutching by the left and the media over delays and disruptions of the ongoing presidential transition, it helps to put things in perspective by reviewing how things went for President-elect Donald Trump during his transition period, starting from Election Day 2016 to his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017.
The Phony Trump-Russia Investigation
Before and during Trump’s transition period, he and his campaign were under investigation by President Barack Obama’s FBI based on the baseless Russia election conspiracy.
Just two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, with Obama’s blessing, FBI Director Jim Comey met one-on-one with Trump in New York to inform him of the “salacious” details of the so-called Steele Dossier (a collection of fabricated nonsense financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign).
But the purpose of Comey’s briefing was not to inform or enlighten Trump, but rather to gather information on him for the ongoing sham investigation known as “Crossfire Hurricane.”
After Comey told Trump about the bogus dossier, he dashed off to a waiting FBI vehicle where he had arranged to have a classified laptop waiting for him. Comey typed up the memo about the Trump briefing while being driven to the FBI’s building in New York, where he scurried to a secure room to gab with the Crossfire Hurricane team waiting back at FBI headquarters in Washington.
Nothing says “smooth transition” like gaslighting the president-elect and reporting your impressions to FBI headquarters, right?
Senate Confirmation of Cabinet Nominees
Incoming presidents traditionally are given leeway to pick their Cabinet officials. That’s supposed to be the norm—the president was elected by the people, and therefore should be allowed to select the top officials to run the executive branch.
After Obama’s election, Senate Republicans—then in the minority—voted for Obama’s Cabinet nominees in large numbers. Top nominees such as Hillary Clinton for secretary of state, Eric Holder for attorney general, and Peter Orszag for director of the Office of Management and Budget, were confirmed 94-2, 75-21, and by unanimous consent, respectively.
That tradition ended after Trump was elected. Trump’s nominees for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson; attorney general, Jeff Sessions; and director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, squeaked by their confirmation votes with 56-43, 52-47, and 51-49, respectively. A collective total of only five “yea” votes were cast by Democrats for those three nominees (three of the five votes coming from Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.).
But for the fact that Republicans controlled the Senate by a razor-thin majority, Trump would have begun his term without these crucial Cabinet officials.
Rather than give deference to the president’s Cabinet nominees, Senate Democrats joined the #Resistance from the get-go.
Postelection Executive Actions
Trump has been criticized in the press for using the postelection months at the White House to cement his legacy—implementing regulations, appointing allies to advisory boards, auctioning off drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, etc.
The Washington Post is unhappy with these actions, scribbling that “the whirlwind of activities has bucked tradition of past presidents who have deferred on major policy actions during the lame-duck period.”
The Post and other Democrats have a short memory. If they’d only read what The New York Times reported after the 2016 election it would be clear that Trump has plenty of precedent to rely upon.
On Dec. 31, 2016, the Times reported:
With less than three weeks before the Obama White House is history … the president is using every power at his disposal to cement his legacy and establish his priorities as the law of the land. He has banned oil drilling off the Atlantic coast, established new environmental monuments, protected funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, ordered the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo Bay, criticized Israeli settlements and punished Russia for interfering in the recent elections through cyberattacks.
Those all sound like “major policy actions,” don’t they? If Trump is “bucking” the tradition of past presidents, as the Post alleges, it must be presidents from the past other than Obama.
Let Bygones Be Bygones?
Should Trump sit idly by instead of cementing his legacy? Should Senate Republicans give a Biden administration’s Cabinet nominees more deference than Democrats gave Trump’s nominees in 2017? Should John Durham (now a special counsel) end his probe into the origins of the FBI’s ridiculous Crossfire Hurricane investigation?
A case can be made that Trump and Senate Republicans should treat the Democrats’ past behavior as water under the bridge. Be the bigger political party, as it were. Perhaps that’s what’s best for the country.
Time will tell, but it’s unlikely that former Vice President Joe Biden will suffer the same shoddy treatment that Trump got during his presidential transition. However, Republicans can certainly make a good case that it’s the transition Biden would deserve.