freebeacon--2020-02-07--MSNBC Anchor Asks If Gerrymandering Could Break Republican Hold on Senate

MSNBC anchor Katy Tur on Friday asked if gerrymandering could help break the Republican hold on the U.S. Senate .
`` Is gerrymandering something that would help improve the situation ?
How does that sort of divide promote consensus in the Senate , or even in the House ? ''
Tur asked .
`` Gerrymandering 's not going to do anything because in the Senate , we 're talking about states .
You ca n't gerrymander states , '' Washington Post reporter Philip Bump responded .
`` Gerrymandering '' refers to the deliberate drawing of district lines within a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to give one party or the other lopsided support .
As the Constitution guarantees every state two senators , there is no way to gerrymander apportionment of individuals elected to that chamber .
Tur and Bump were discussing the influence of rural voters over urban voters due to this equal allocation , which Tur argued has led to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 's ( R. , Ky. ) historic run of judicial appointments .
`` Gerrymandering , '' Bump said , could not change the balance of power—only a change among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to appeal to people in those states , '' Bump said .
`` And one of the concerns that a lot of Democrats have is , how do we do that while at the same time effectively representing our more diverse base and our more diverse electorate . ''

MSNBC anchor Katy Tur on Friday asked if gerrymandering could help break the Republican hold on the U.S. Senate.
"Is gerrymandering something that would help improve the situation? How does that sort of divide promote consensus in the Senate, or even in the House?" Tur asked.
"Gerrymandering's not going to do anything because in the Senate, we're talking about states. You can't gerrymander states," Washington Post reporter Philip Bump responded.
"Gerrymandering" refers to the deliberate drawing of district lines within a state or other jurisdiction around certain populations so as to give one party or the other lopsided support. As the Constitution guarantees every state two senators, there is no way to gerrymander apportionment of individuals elected to that chamber.
Tur and Bump were discussing the influence of rural voters over urban voters due to this equal allocation, which Tur argued has led to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R., Ky.) historic run of judicial appointments. "Gerrymandering," Bump said, could not change the balance of power—only a change among Democrats can.
"Democrats need to be able to appeal to people in those states," Bump said. "And one of the concerns that a lot of Democrats have is, how do we do that while at the same time effectively representing our more diverse base and our more diverse electorate."


freebeacon--2020-02-07--Virginia Dems Push Assault Weapons Ban, Magazine Confiscation Through Committee

Virginia Democrats on Friday pushed a bill through the state house of delegates ' Public Safety Committee that would ban the sale of `` assault weapons '' and confiscate certain ammunition magazines .
The bill , HB961 , is the most controversial advanced by Democratic lawmakers and Governor Ralph Northam ( D. ) since they took control of both houses of the state legislature in November .
It would outlaw new sales of some of the country 's most popular firearms , including the AR-15 , and make it illegal to possess ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legally purchased .
Friday 's vote was along party lines , with one Democrat abstaining .
The proposal could affect millions of Virginia gun owners , according to the firearms industry 's trade group .
`` This bill would affect more than just your modern sporting rifles like the AR-15 , '' Mark Oliva , a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation , told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` It would affect the vast majority of handguns . ''
Friday 's move is just the latest in the ongoing struggle over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal offensive in that struggle , which has been spearheaded by Northam , has prompted peaceful protest by thousands of Virginians and a spike in gun purchases amid fears of more draconian legislation .
The latest legislative move is likely to further galvanize gun-rights proponents , who have promised to make their fight against Northam 's laws a long one .
The National Rifle Association , which has been at the forefront of the gun-rights push , decried the bill and accused Democrats of bowing to pressure from billionaire Michael Bloomberg , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' successful campaign to flip control of the legislature last year .
`` This gun ban will make millions of law-abiding Virginians felons overnight while doing nothing to decrease crime , '' Catherine Mortensen , an NRA spokeswoman , told the Free Beacon .
`` That 's why a majority of Virginians oppose it .
The fact is lawmakers delayed bringing up this bill so they could pander to Mike Bloomberg , their billionaire benefactor who will be in Richmond next week to headline a Democratic fundraiser to further enrich themselves .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bow to out-of-state interests than listen to their constituents and fellow lawmakers . ''
Gun-control advocates applauded the committee vote .
Gun-control group Brady said `` assault weapons '' were `` uniquely lethal '' in a press release .
`` Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines undeniably make mass shooting incidents worse by equipping shooters with firepower capable of wounding and killing more victims and reducing the opportunities for escape , defensive action , or law-enforcement intervention , '' Christian Heyne , Brady vice president of policy , said at the morning 's committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday is less extreme than the first AR-15 proposal backed by Northam , which would have actively confiscated `` assault weapons '' in addition to magazines .
The current proposal also raised the magazine limit by two rounds , from 10 to 12 , and removed a registration requirement .
Democrats ' backtracking comes after months of protests and sanctuary resolutions being passed across the state , culminating in a rally with tens of thousands of attendees in Richmond last month .
There may be further revisions made to the bill during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House before a final vote can be taken .
The House has until Tuesday to pass it , after which it is required to move on to budget bills .
If it passes the House , the bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate , where Democrats have a two-vote majority and state senator Lynwood Lewis ( D. ) has publicly opposed a new ban on guns or magazines .

Virginia Democrats on Friday pushed a bill through the state house of delegates' Public Safety Committee that would ban the sale of "assault weapons" and confiscate certain ammunition magazines.
The bill, HB961, is the most controversial advanced by Democratic lawmakers and Governor Ralph Northam (D.) since they took control of both houses of the state legislature in November. It would outlaw new sales of some of the country's most popular firearms, including the AR-15, and make it illegal to possess ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 12 rounds, even if they were previously legally purchased. Friday's vote was along party lines, with one Democrat abstaining.
The proposal could affect millions of Virginia gun owners, according to the firearms industry's trade group.
"This bill would affect more than just your modern sporting rifles like the AR-15," Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told the Washington Free Beacon. "It would affect the vast majority of handguns."
Friday's move is just the latest in the ongoing struggle over gun control in the state. The liberal offensive in that struggle, which has been spearheaded by Northam, has prompted peaceful protest by thousands of Virginians and a spike in gun purchases amid fears of more draconian legislation. The latest legislative move is likely to further galvanize gun-rights proponents, who have promised to make their fight against Northam's laws a long one.
The National Rifle Association, which has been at the forefront of the gun-rights push, decried the bill and accused Democrats of bowing to pressure from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who poured millions of dollars into the Democrats' successful campaign to flip control of the legislature last year.
"This gun ban will make millions of law-abiding Virginians felons overnight while doing nothing to decrease crime," Catherine Mortensen, an NRA spokeswoman, told the Free Beacon. "That's why a majority of Virginians oppose it. The fact is lawmakers delayed bringing up this bill so they could pander to Mike Bloomberg, their billionaire benefactor who will be in Richmond next week to headline a Democratic fundraiser to further enrich themselves. It is clear that House leaders would rather bow to out-of-state interests than listen to their constituents and fellow lawmakers."
Gun-control advocates applauded the committee vote. Gun-control group Brady said "assault weapons" were "uniquely lethal" in a press release.
"Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines undeniably make mass shooting incidents worse by equipping shooters with firepower capable of wounding and killing more victims and reducing the opportunities for escape, defensive action, or law-enforcement intervention," Christian Heyne, Brady vice president of policy, said at the morning's committee meeting.
The version of HB961 passed Friday is less extreme than the first AR-15 proposal backed by Northam, which would have actively confiscated "assault weapons" in addition to magazines. The current proposal also raised the magazine limit by two rounds, from 10 to 12, and removed a registration requirement. Democrats' backtracking comes after months of protests and sanctuary resolutions being passed across the state, culminating in a rally with tens of thousands of attendees in Richmond last month.
There may be further revisions made to the bill during the required three days of deliberation in the House before a final vote can be taken. The House has until Tuesday to pass it, after which it is required to move on to budget bills. If it passes the House, the bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where Democrats have a two-vote majority and state senator Lynwood Lewis (D.) has publicly opposed a new ban on guns or magazines.


freebeacon--2020-02-07--Sanders Campaign Chair: Buttigieg ‘Has Cozied Up to the Billionaire Class’

Sen. Bernie Sanders 's ( I. , Vt. ) campaign chair criticized rival Pete Buttigieg Friday , accusing him of being bought by special interests and `` adopted '' by the billionaire class .
`` [ Buttigieg ] is not a billionaire himself , but the billionaire class has adopted him as one of their own .
He has cozied up to the billionaire class , '' Faiz Shakir said on MSNBC .
`` You have to ask , ‘ Why does the billionaire class feel so comfortable with Pete Buttigieg ? '
And the answer is that they 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` This is a candidate in Pete Buttigieg who used to be for Medicare for All , proudly proclaimed his desire to be for Medicare for All .
Suddenly while he 's campaigning for president , he accepts money from Aetna , from Pfizer , from a bunch of health insurance companies , from a bunch of drug companies .
And then he backs off of Medicare for All . ''
MSNBC anchor Katy Tur asked Shakir if he was equating Buttigieg with special interest groups .
`` For sure .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has a super PAC supporting him .
He has gone into wine caves and solicited money from the highest billionaires and millionaires in this country , '' Shakir responded .
`` He has gotten corporate executives behind his campaign , accepted them from fossil fuel financiers , accepted them from pharmaceutical from , health care—you name it , he 's accepted their money in order to fund a campaign that has then cozied up with those individuals to make policies that benefit them . ''
Before Shakir 's appearance , Sanders tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from billionaires .
Buttigieg holds a narrow lead over Sanders in the Iowa caucus at the time of this writing , although the results remain in doubt .
The pair will take the stage along with five other Democratic presidential candidates Friday night for a debate in New Hampshire .

Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I., Vt.) campaign chair criticized rival Pete Buttigieg Friday, accusing him of being bought by special interests and "adopted" by the billionaire class.
"[Buttigieg] is not a billionaire himself, but the billionaire class has adopted him as one of their own. He has cozied up to the billionaire class," Faiz Shakir said on MSNBC. "You have to ask, 'Why does the billionaire class feel so comfortable with Pete Buttigieg?' And the answer is that they're able to influence some of the policies.
"This is a candidate in Pete Buttigieg who used to be for Medicare for All, proudly proclaimed his desire to be for Medicare for All. Suddenly while he's campaigning for president, he accepts money from Aetna, from Pfizer, from a bunch of health insurance companies, from a bunch of drug companies. And then he backs off of Medicare for All."
MSNBC anchor Katy Tur asked Shakir if he was equating Buttigieg with special interest groups.
"For sure. He has accepted money from special interests, he has a super PAC supporting him. He has gone into wine caves and solicited money from the highest billionaires and millionaires in this country," Shakir responded. "He has gotten corporate executives behind his campaign, accepted them from fossil fuel financiers, accepted them from pharmaceutical from, health care—you name it, he's accepted their money in order to fund a campaign that has then cozied up with those individuals to make policies that benefit them."
Before Shakir's appearance, Sanders tweeted an attack against Buttigieg for taking money from billionaires.
This election is fundamentally about whose side you are on. #PetesBillionaires pic.twitter.com/hZi3uzCmvJ — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 7, 2020
Buttigieg holds a narrow lead over Sanders in the Iowa caucus at the time of this writing, although the results remain in doubt. The pair will take the stage along with five other Democratic presidential candidates Friday night for a debate in New Hampshire.


freebeacon--2020-02-07--The Campaign to Sever the Democratic Alliance With AIPAC

A Democrat-backed effort to boycott the nation 's leading pro-Israel group is gaining steam , worrying center-left advocates of the Jewish state who have been struggling in recent months to ensure their party continues to uphold the historically close U.S.-Israel relationship .
Far-left critics of Israel and its supporters in the United States have been gaining traction in the Democratic Party for some time .
As young leaders such as Reps. Ilhan Omar ( D. , Minn. ) and Rashida Tlaib ( D. , Mich. ) gain increasing control of the party , anti-Israel voices once shunned by mainstream Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open arms .
This shift was on display Thursday evening when an activist with the virulently anti-Israel IfNotNow movement got Democratic 2020 contender Elizabeth Warren to promise she would boycott this year 's AIPAC conference , which has attracted top names from both parties in past years .
IfNotNow , one of the anti-Israel movement 's newest leaders , has been promoting what it calls the Skip AIPAC campaign .
By publicly pressuring Democratic leaders who are eager to please the party 's far-left voices , IfNotNow hopes to erase prominent Democratic support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Jew and I 'm terrified by the unholy alliance that AIPAC is forming with Islamophobes and anti-Semites and white nationalists , and no Democrat should legitimize that kind of bigotry by attending their annual policy conference , '' an unnamed IfNotNow activist said to Warren during a town hall event in New Hampshire .
`` I 'm really grateful that you skipped the AIPAC conference last year , and so my question is if you 'll join me in committing to skip the AIPAC conference this March ? ''
`` Yeah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to video of the event that has been circulating online .
The candidate went on to express support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse , saying that `` for America to be a good ally of Israel and of the Palestinians , we need to encourage both parties to get to the negotiating table , and we 're not doing that if we keep standing with one party and saying , ‘ we 're on your side . '
'' Warren 's eagerness to back the AIPAC boycott movement did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-Israel Democrats , who say they have long been battling efforts by the party 's left wing to mainstream anti-Israel causes .
One Jewish Democratic operative with ties to AIPAC told the Washington Free Beacon that IfNotNow 's influence on the party is becoming increasingly problematic .
`` There are many reasons for [ Warren ] not to attend AIPAC 's Policy Conference , but getting pressured by an extremist group is not one of them , '' said the source , who would only discuss the matter anonymously .
`` IfNotNow has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream political discourse , including within the Democratic primary . ''
The push to boycott AIPAC is by no means new .
Liberal advocacy groups have long viewed AIPAC as overly hawkish on Israel and out of line with the Democratic Party 's evolving stance on the Jewish state .
Liberal mainstays like the anti-war MoveOn group have demanded Democratic leaders boycott Israel for some time .
This has dovetailed with growing support for the Boycott , Divestment , and Sanctions movement , or BDS , which seeks to wage economic warfare on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been building in the Democratic Party for years , with one of the most notable examples playing out at the 2012 convention , when a majority of Democratic conference goers audibly booed the state of Israel .
An AIPAC spokesman would not comment on the issue when contacted by the Free Beacon .
Matt Brooks , executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition , said the divide between the two major parties on Israel is more severe than ever .
`` Every week we see more evidence that the Democrat Party is turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in a statement after Warren said she would again boycott the AIPAC conference .
`` Elizabeth Warren , who came in third in Iowa , is happy to speak to anti-Israel groups like J Street , but she told a town hall audience yesterday that she will shun AIPAC , '' Brooks said .
`` Now she is standing by while her supporters slander the bi-partisan , pro-Israel group that has a decades-long track record of bringing Democrats and Republicans together to support our ally , Israel . ''
Iowa caucus frontrunner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ally of the anti-Israel movement , which , in turn , has long been one of his leading backers .
`` The winner of the Democrats ' Iowa caucus , whether it ends up being Sanders or [ Pete ] Buttigieg , has spent the last year labeling the only democracy in the Middle East a human rights abuser , '' Brooks said .
`` Democrats have gone so off the rails on Israel that some of the biggest names in the party want to leverage military cooperation aid to get Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Israel wing that now controls the Democrat Party .
Clearly only one party can still call itself pro-Israel , the Republican Party . ''

A Democrat-backed effort to boycott the nation's leading pro-Israel group is gaining steam, worrying center-left advocates of the Jewish state who have been struggling in recent months to ensure their party continues to uphold the historically close U.S.-Israel relationship.
Far-left critics of Israel and its supporters in the United States have been gaining traction in the Democratic Party for some time. As young leaders such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) gain increasing control of the party, anti-Israel voices once shunned by mainstream Democrats are beginning to find themselves welcomed with open arms.
This shift was on display Thursday evening when an activist with the virulently anti-Israel IfNotNow movement got Democratic 2020 contender Elizabeth Warren to promise she would boycott this year's AIPAC conference, which has attracted top names from both parties in past years.
IfNotNow, one of the anti-Israel movement's newest leaders, has been promoting what it calls the Skip AIPAC campaign. By publicly pressuring Democratic leaders who are eager to please the party's far-left voices, IfNotNow hopes to erase prominent Democratic support for AIPAC.
"I'm an American Jew and I'm terrified by the unholy alliance that AIPAC is forming with Islamophobes and anti-Semites and white nationalists, and no Democrat should legitimize that kind of bigotry by attending their annual policy conference," an unnamed IfNotNow activist said to Warren during a town hall event in New Hampshire. "I'm really grateful that you skipped the AIPAC conference last year, and so my question is if you'll join me in committing to skip the AIPAC conference this March?"
Warren, unfazed by the demand, agreed.
"Yeah," Warren responded to much applause, according to video of the event that has been circulating online.
The candidate went on to express support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, saying that "for America to be a good ally of Israel and of the Palestinians, we need to encourage both parties to get to the negotiating table, and we're not doing that if we keep standing with one party and saying, 'we're on your side.'"
Warren's eagerness to back the AIPAC boycott movement did not come as a surprise to mainstream pro-Israel Democrats, who say they have long been battling efforts by the party's left wing to mainstream anti-Israel causes.
One Jewish Democratic operative with ties to AIPAC told the Washington Free Beacon that IfNotNow's influence on the party is becoming increasingly problematic.
"There are many reasons for [Warren] not to attend AIPAC's Policy Conference, but getting pressured by an extremist group is not one of them," said the source, who would only discuss the matter anonymously. "IfNotNow has no place in anything close to the mainstream political discourse, including within the Democratic primary."
The push to boycott AIPAC is by no means new. Liberal advocacy groups have long viewed AIPAC as overly hawkish on Israel and out of line with the Democratic Party's evolving stance on the Jewish state. Liberal mainstays like the antiwar MoveOn group have demanded Democratic leaders boycott Israel for some time. This has dovetailed with growing support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel.
Support for these movements has been building in the Democratic Party for years, with one of the most notable examples playing out at the 2012 convention, when a majority of Democratic conference goers audibly booed the state of Israel.
An AIPAC spokesman would not comment on the issue when contacted by the Free Beacon.
Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said the divide between the two major parties on Israel is more severe than ever.
"Every week we see more evidence that the Democrat Party is turning its back on Israel," Brooks said in a statement after Warren said she would again boycott the AIPAC conference.
"Elizabeth Warren, who came in third in Iowa, is happy to speak to anti-Israel groups like J Street, but she told a town hall audience yesterday that she will shun AIPAC," Brooks said. "Now she is standing by while her supporters slander the bi-partisan, pro-Israel group that has a decades-long track record of bringing Democrats and Republicans together to support our ally, Israel."
Iowa caucus frontrunner Bernie Sanders has long positioned himself as an ally of the anti-Israel movement, which, in turn, has long been one of his leading backers.
"The winner of the Democrats' Iowa caucus, whether it ends up being Sanders or [Pete] Buttigieg, has spent the last year labeling the only democracy in the Middle East a human rights abuser," Brooks said. "Democrats have gone so off the rails on Israel that some of the biggest names in the party want to leverage military cooperation aid to get Israel to submit to the whims of the anti-Israel wing that now controls the Democrat Party. Clearly only one party can still call itself pro-Israel, the Republican Party."


freebeacon--2020-02-07--Pete Buttigieg Refuses to Answer Half of NYT Foreign Policy Survey

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg refused to say whether he supports current levels of military aid to Israel or keeping troops in Afghanistan , two of the many important foreign policy questions he dodged in a New York Times survey .
Every major remaining Democratic presidential candidate responded to a Times survey featuring 36 questions on 11 foreign policy topics , but the former South Bend mayor was the only one who did not answer a majority of the questions .
• `` Should respect for Hong Kong ’ s political independence , under the terms of the handover agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal relations and trade with China ? ''
• `` Should normal relations and trade be contingent on China ’ s closing its internment camps for Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups ? ''
• `` Should the United States maintain its current level of military aid to Israel ?
If not , how should the level of aid change ? ''
• `` Would American troops be in Afghanistan at the end of your first term ?
If so , would you limit those troops ' mission to counterterrorism and intelligence gathering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single question on China , U.S. cyber policy , NATO , or Afghanistan .
Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar and former vice president Joe Biden each declined to answer three questions .
Klobuchar did not answer questions about using military action to protect oil supplies , preempting North Korean and Iranian nuclear tests , or whether she would give nonmilitary aid to opposition efforts in Venezuela .
Biden did not answer questions about the legality of Trump 's military strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani , whether he would rule out any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether he would gradually lift sanctions on North Korea .
Foreign policy is considered a potential weakness for Buttigieg , whose highest public office was serving as mayor of Indiana 's fourth-largest city .
Sarah Palin , former Republican governor of Alaska , faced similar criticism during her 2008 vice presidential run .
With his surprise strong finish in Monday 's Iowa caucus—he remains virtually tied with Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) as tallying continues—Buttigieg is the only Democratic candidate who has won delegates but never held office at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded to these criticisms by soliciting the endorsement of more than 200 Democratic foreign policy experts , who noted that the Navy veteran `` travelled the world and served his country abroad '' and `` has engaged deeply to learn about other cultures and learn their languages . ''

Former mayor did not answer a single question on China, U.S. cyber policy, NATO, or Afghanistan
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg refused to say whether he supports current levels of military aid to Israel or keeping troops in Afghanistan, two of the many important foreign policy questions he dodged in a New York Times survey.
Every major remaining Democratic presidential candidate responded to a Times survey featuring 36 questions on 11 foreign policy topics, but the former South Bend mayor was the only one who did not answer a majority of the questions.
Among the 19 questions Buttigieg left blank:
"Should respect for Hong Kong’s political independence, under the terms of the handover agreement with Britain, be a prerequisite for normal relations and trade with China?"
"Should normal relations and trade be contingent on China’s closing its internment camps for Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups?"
"Should the United States maintain its current level of military aid to Israel? If not, how should the level of aid change?"
"Would American troops be in Afghanistan at the end of your first term? If so, would you limit those troops' mission to counterterrorism and intelligence gathering?"
Buttigieg did not answer a single question on China, U.S. cyber policy, NATO, or Afghanistan.
Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar and former vice president Joe Biden each declined to answer three questions. Klobuchar did not answer questions about using military action to protect oil supplies, preempting North Korean and Iranian nuclear tests, or whether she would give nonmilitary aid to opposition efforts in Venezuela. Biden did not answer questions about the legality of Trump's military strike that killed Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani, whether he would rule out any type of attack on Iran, or whether he would gradually lift sanctions on North Korea.
Foreign policy is considered a potential weakness for Buttigieg, whose highest public office was serving as mayor of Indiana's fourth-largest city. Sarah Palin, former Republican governor of Alaska, faced similar criticism during her 2008 vice presidential run. With his surprise strong finish in Monday's Iowa caucus—he remains virtually tied with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) as tallying continues—Buttigieg is the only Democratic candidate who has won delegates but never held office at the federal level.
The Buttigieg campaign has responded to these criticisms by soliciting the endorsement of more than 200 Democratic foreign policy experts, who noted that the Navy veteran "travelled the world and served his country abroad" and "has engaged deeply to learn about other cultures and learn their languages."


freebeacon--2020-02-07--Buttigieg Box Watch: Mayor Pete Has a Height Problem

Former mayors Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg are each vying to become the shortest U.S. president elected since William McKinley ( 5 ' 7″ ) in 1896 .
Only one of them , however , will take the stage Friday night at the Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire .
Because Bloomberg did n't qualify for the debate—he is n't even on the ballot in New Hampshire—the American public must wait to assess the accuracy of President Donald Trump 's claim that the historically diminutive billionaire plans to continue his long-established tradition of standing on a box to conceal the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg , on the other hand , will be among the most closely watched candidates at the debate in Manchester .
He is fresh off a ( sort of ) victory in the Iowa caucuses and has seen an uptick in support ahead of the Granite State primary next Tuesday .
Like Bloomberg , however , Mayor Pete 's true height remains clouded in mystery , raising questions about his own propensity to deploy boxes , lifts , and other stature-boosting items in an effort to deceive the American people .
Bloomberg has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That 's a blatant lie .
Google lists his height at 5 ' 8″ , but even that seems like an exaggeration , based on the available evidence .
A fair and balanced assessment suggests the former New York City mayor is actually no taller than 5 ' 6″ .
Buttigieg 's true height is similarly hard to pin down .
A Google search , for example , does not return a reliable result .
Given Buttigieg 's extensive network of Silicon Valley donors , one can not help but wonder if this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the candidate and the search engine giant .
A Daily Dot investigation noted the unusual reluctance of mainstream journalists to mention the candidate 's height in profiles .
Buttigieg 's campaign has previously claimed the former mayor is 5 ' 9″ , while a number of obscure websites list a height of 5 ' 8″ , which is also the reported height of Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass. )
.
The following photo , taken in October at the Democratic primary debate in Ohio , raises a number of questions—not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also those of Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) , who is alleged to be six feet tall , the same height as former vice president Joe Biden .
To be fair , Warren was wearing heeled boots at the debate , but it 's unclear if shoes alone can explain the height disparity , given that Buttigieg also relies on heeled dress shoes to boost his stature .
It 's worth noting that , based on the available evidence , Buttigieg has not yet taken the extreme measures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R. , Fla. ) did during his 2016 presidential campaign to conceal the truth from voters .
It 's also worth noting that while Buttigieg 's height was the subject of considerable online mockery after a photo surfaced of him standing next to former candidate Beto O'Rourke—listed at 6 ' 4″—some members of the media have been impressed by the increasingly pumped-up physique of `` Mayor Beast . ''
Whether or not Buttigieg decides to be honest with the American people , he will face an unprecedented degree of ruthless trolling from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he win the nomination .
Just ask the ( allegedly ) 5 ' 8″ Rand Paul how it feels to be utterly humiliated on a national stage .
President Donald J. Trump has already mocked Buttigieg 's height and likened the candidate to Mad Magazine mascot Alfred E. Neuman .
Alas , a Trump-Buttigieg matchup in the general election will remain a pipe dream until Mayor Pete can attract more than zero percent of black voters in the Democratic primary .
He remains far more popular among wealthy white voters in the `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martha 's Vineyard , and Cape Cod .
American voters have not elected a president shorter than six feet since Jimmy Carter in 1976 .

Former mayors Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg are each vying to become the shortest U.S. president elected since William McKinley (5'7") in 1896. Only one of them, however, will take the stage Friday night at the Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire.
Because Bloomberg didn't qualify for the debate—he isn't even on the ballot in New Hampshire—the American public must wait to assess the accuracy of President Donald Trump's claim that the historically diminutive billionaire plans to continue his long-established tradition of standing on a box to conceal the truth about his height from voters.
Buttigieg, on the other hand, will be among the most closely watched candidates at the debate in Manchester. He is fresh off a (sort of) victory in the Iowa caucuses and has seen an uptick in support ahead of the Granite State primary next Tuesday.
Like Bloomberg, however, Mayor Pete's true height remains clouded in mystery, raising questions about his own propensity to deploy boxes, lifts, and other stature-boosting items in an effort to deceive the American people.
Bloomberg has often claimed to be 5'10". That's a blatant lie. Google lists his height at 5'8", but even that seems like an exaggeration, based on the available evidence. A fair and balanced assessment suggests the former New York City mayor is actually no taller than 5'6".
Buttigieg's true height is similarly hard to pin down. A Google search, for example, does not return a reliable result. Given Buttigieg's extensive network of Silicon Valley donors, one cannot help but wonder if this omission is the result of illicit collusion between the candidate and the search engine giant.
A Daily Dot investigation noted the unusual reluctance of mainstream journalists to mention the candidate's height in profiles. Buttigieg's campaign has previously claimed the former mayor is 5'9", while a number of obscure websites list a height of 5'8", which is also the reported height of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.).
The following photo, taken in October at the Democratic primary debate in Ohio, raises a number of questions—not only about Buttigieg's height claims, but also those of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), who is alleged to be six feet tall, the same height as former vice president Joe Biden.
To be fair, Warren was wearing heeled boots at the debate, but it's unclear if shoes alone can explain the height disparity, given that Buttigieg also relies on heeled dress shoes to boost his stature.
It's worth noting that, based on the available evidence, Buttigieg has not yet taken the extreme measures that the notoriously tiny Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) did during his 2016 presidential campaign to conceal the truth from voters.
It's also worth noting that while Buttigieg's height was the subject of considerable online mockery after a photo surfaced of him standing next to former candidate Beto O'Rourke—listed at 6'4"—some members of the media have been impressed by the increasingly pumped-up physique of "Mayor Beast."
Whether or not Buttigieg decides to be honest with the American people, he will face an unprecedented degree of ruthless trolling from the 6'3" commander in chief should he win the nomination. Just ask the (allegedly) 5'8" Rand Paul how it feels to be utterly humiliated on a national stage.
President Donald J. Trump has already mocked Buttigieg's height and likened the candidate to Mad Magazine mascot Alfred E. Neuman. Alas, a Trump-Buttigieg matchup in the general election will remain a pipe dream until Mayor Pete can attract more than zero percent of black voters in the Democratic primary. He remains far more popular among wealthy white voters in the "boat shoe" strongholds of Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and Cape Cod.
American voters have not elected a president shorter than six feet since Jimmy Carter in 1976.


freebeacon--2020-02-07--Ayanna Pressley Skipped SOTU to Avoid Becoming a Meme

Rep. Ayanna Pressley ( D. , Mass . )
on Friday said part of her decision to skip the State of the Union earlier Tuesday was to avoid criticism , such as being made into `` memes . ''
`` It was a sham of a State of the Union to me , '' Pressley said during a town hall event put on by Democracy Now !
and the Rising Majority .
`` The other thing is that I didn ’ t want to give anyone the opportunity to once again co-opt our imagery and to weaponize it .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mean-mug and do that .
And I did not want them to take and make it into memes .
`` I already know how [ President Donald Trump ] feels about me and our folk , and I did n't want anyone speculating about how I felt .
I wanted to control my own narrative , my own image . ''
Despite skipping the State of the Union , the freshman congresswoman delivered a Working Families Party response to it , which she said was also part of her effort to maintain @ @ @ @ @

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D., Mass.) on Friday said part of her decision to skip the State of the Union earlier Tuesday was to avoid criticism, such as being made into "memes."
"It was a sham of a State of the Union to me," Pressley said during a town hall event put on by Democracy Now! and the Rising Majority. "The other thing is that I didn’t want to give anyone the opportunity to once again co-opt our imagery and to weaponize it. So I could go there and raise eyebrow and mean-mug and do that. And I did not want them to take and make it into memes.
"I already know how [President Donald Trump] feels about me and our folk, and I didn't want anyone speculating about how I felt. I wanted to control my own narrative, my own image."
Despite skipping the State of the Union, the freshman congresswoman delivered a Working Families Party response to it, which she said was also part of her effort to maintain control of her narrative.


freebeacon--2020-02-07--Omar Blames the U.S. for Floods in Other Countries

Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D. , Minn. ) on Friday argued that Americans seeking to help refugees should first think about how the United States is to blame for their predicament .
`` When you see a Somali refugee or an Iraqi refugee or a Libyan refugee , we often are like ‘ this is my neighbor , they must have survived some struggle , ' we do n't ever pause to think ‘ what American policy made them come over here ? '
'' she said at a Democracy Now !
and Rising Majority event in Washington , D.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to say even environmental problems around the world ultimately come back to how Americans have contributed to global warming .
`` When you see flooding happening in a country abroad and you are urgently raising money for these lives to be saved , you do n't think about , ‘ How have I contributed to the climate warming that has led to these floodings and these catastrophes that are taking place abroad ? ''
Omar said .
She told the Howard University audience that the problems caused by the American military should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vision of what our foreign policy should be . ''
She also said it is important `` what human rights conditionalities [ sic ] could mean as we think about people who are using the weapons that are created in this country to take the lives of innocent children and women and men abroad . ''
She concluded by arguing the United States should stop using money for `` militarizing our government '' and instead use it `` for the prospect of peace around the world . ''
`` There is so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the muscle memory that has become the norm in the ways that we formulate our policies , '' she said .
She also argued that Americans should worry about jobs going overseas not because that reduces employment opportunities for them , but rather because it means people in countries such as Mexico will be subjected to the exploitative practices of American corporations .

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) on Friday argued that Americans seeking to help refugees should first think about how the United States is to blame for their predicament.
"When you see a Somali refugee or an Iraqi refugee or a Libyan refugee, we often are like 'this is my neighbor, they must have survived some struggle,' we don't ever pause to think 'what American policy made them come over here?'" she said at a Democracy Now! and Rising Majority event in Washington, D.C., receiving loud applause.
She went on to say even environmental problems around the world ultimately come back to how Americans have contributed to global warming.
"When you see flooding happening in a country abroad and you are urgently raising money for these lives to be saved, you don't think about, 'How have I contributed to the climate warming that has led to these floodings and these catastrophes that are taking place abroad?'" Omar said.
She told the Howard University audience that the problems caused by the American military should lead the country toward "reimagining a vision of what our foreign policy should be." She also said it is important "what human rights conditionalities [sic] could mean as we think about people who are using the weapons that are created in this country to take the lives of innocent children and women and men abroad."
She concluded by arguing the United States should stop using money for "militarizing our government" and instead use it "for the prospect of peace around the world."
"There is so much that is possible if we stopped using the muscle memory that has become the norm in the ways that we formulate our policies," she said.
She also argued that Americans should worry about jobs going overseas not because that reduces employment opportunities for them, but rather because it means people in countries such as Mexico will be subjected to the exploitative practices of American corporations.


freebeacon--2020-02-07--Review: ‘Birds of Prey’

Review: ‘Birds of Prey’

Birds of Prey wants to be like Deadpool , and it is , except that it 's also very bad .
Deadpool rewrote the comic-book-movie script with its wild depiction of a fast-talking , foul-mouthed , nihilistic brute who is turned into an impregnable superhero with extremely questionable morals .
Birds of Prey is foul-mouthed , bloody , and cartoonishly low-lifey à la Deadpool—its protagonist 's go-to move is to break her opponent 's leg—but to no particular end or purpose .
Playing nihilistic hyper-violence for laughs is , it should go without saying , a very tricky business .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they 're movies about a bad guy who is n't actually a bad guy—and because they are legitimately funny .
Birds of Prey is about a psychopath who is really nothing more than a psychopath , except that she 's spectacularly pretty .
And while it has a comic tone and a comic patina , there isn ’ t a laugh in it .
The movie 's writer , Christina Hodson , and its director , Cathy Yan , expect us to root for their protagonist , Harley Quinn , better known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schizophrenic abused-child Joker as played by soon-to-be-Oscar-winner Joaquin Phoenix , but the criminal-mastermind Joker Quinn calls `` Puddin ' . ''
Only we 're never given a reason to root for Harley save that she 's played by the winsome Margot Robbie , who spends the entirety of the movie mugging like Jerry Lewis , showing off her Krav Maga training , and speaking in a horrific Noo Yawk accent that comes and goes like the women talking of Michelangelo .
Luckily for Robbie , she is the most beautiful creature on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even the gaudy makeup and hair that define Harley Quinn ca n't keep the camera from loving her to death .
Harley narrates the movie the way Wade Wilson narrated Deadpool , only the narration in Deadpool was hilariously profane even as it advanced the plot .
The words Hodson puts in Harley 's mouth are peppy and cutesy and fall as flat as the stand-up routine Phoenix puts on in Joker .
As for director Yan , Birds of Prey wants to dazzle us with its fractured rococo storytelling style , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taranteeny .
In the movie 's opening 15 minutes we learn that Harley and the Joker have broken up , and she ’ s having trouble getting over it .
We see this and hear about it again and again and again .
We got it the first time .
Trust me .
The breakup means Harley no longer has the Joker 's protektsia , and so she has to fend off all kinds of people who now feel free to kill her—leading to endlessly repetitive scenes of Robbie grabbing a guy 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stick that allows her to do a somersault , land behind him , and ( natch ) break his leg .
I 'm not kidding when I say there are five such sequences in Birds of Prey , and it 's not a long movie .
Harley 's chief antagonist is Ewan McGregor , who plays a rich-boy gangster who runs a sleazy club in Gotham City .
For complex reasons that are incredibly uninteresting , McGregor is in pursuit of a diamond that has a secret code inside it—yes , a diamond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlock the offshore bank accounts of another gangster whose family McGregor had gunned down years earlier .
The dead gangster 's daughter has grown up and is using a crossbow to kill everybody who killed her family .
A chanteuse at McGregor 's club is feeding inside info to a tough Puerto Rican lesbian police detective who has never gotten her due inside the department because men .
This crew—Harley , the cop , the crossbow user , the chanteuse , and the teenager—become the superhero fighting squad of the title .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the DC comic-book universe , this origin story of the Birds of Prey might give you a thrill up your leg .
As for me , by the second hour of this root canal pretending to be a movie , I was so longing for escape that I was reminded of a statement by the producer of Roseanne Barr 's original sitcom after a single year of working with her : `` I have chosen not to return to the show next season .
Instead , my wife and I have decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace and quiet of Beirut . ''

Birds of Prey wants to be like Deadpool, and it is, except that it's also very bad. Deadpool rewrote the comic-book-movie script with its wild depiction of a fast-talking, foul-mouthed, nihilistic brute who is turned into an impregnable superhero with extremely questionable morals. Birds of Prey is foul-mouthed, bloody, and cartoonishly low-lifey à la Deadpool—its protagonist's go-to move is to break her opponent's leg—but to no particular end or purpose.
Playing nihilistic hyper-violence for laughs is, it should go without saying, a very tricky business. Deadpool and its sequel pulled it off because they're movies about a bad guy who isn't actually a bad guy—and because they are legitimately funny. Birds of Prey is about a psychopath who is really nothing more than a psychopath, except that she's spectacularly pretty. And while it has a comic tone and a comic patina, there isn’t a laugh in it.
The movie's writer, Christina Hodson, and its director, Cathy Yan, expect us to root for their protagonist, Harley Quinn, better known as the girlfriend of the Joker—not the schizophrenic abused-child Joker as played by soon-to-be-Oscar-winner Joaquin Phoenix, but the criminal-mastermind Joker Quinn calls "Puddin'." Only we're never given a reason to root for Harley save that she's played by the winsome Margot Robbie, who spends the entirety of the movie mugging like Jerry Lewis, showing off her Krav Maga training, and speaking in a horrific Noo Yawk accent that comes and goes like the women talking of Michelangelo. Luckily for Robbie, she is the most beautiful creature on the face of this earth, and so even the gaudy makeup and hair that define Harley Quinn can't keep the camera from loving her to death.
Harley narrates the movie the way Wade Wilson narrated Deadpool, only the narration in Deadpool was hilariously profane even as it advanced the plot. The words Hodson puts in Harley's mouth are peppy and cutesy and fall as flat as the stand-up routine Phoenix puts on in Joker. As for director Yan, Birds of Prey wants to dazzle us with its fractured rococo storytelling style, but she’s less Tarantino and more Taranteeny. In the movie's opening 15 minutes we learn that Harley and the Joker have broken up, and she’s having trouble getting over it. We see this and hear about it again and again and again. We got it the first time. Trust me.
The breakup means Harley no longer has the Joker's protektsia, and so she has to fend off all kinds of people who now feel free to kill her—leading to endlessly repetitive scenes of Robbie grabbing a guy's arm and using it as a pole-vaulting stick that allows her to do a somersault, land behind him, and (natch) break his leg. I'm not kidding when I say there are five such sequences in Birds of Prey, and it's not a long movie.
Harley's chief antagonist is Ewan McGregor, who plays a rich-boy gangster who runs a sleazy club in Gotham City. For complex reasons that are incredibly uninteresting, McGregor is in pursuit of a diamond that has a secret code inside it—yes, a diamond with a code. The code will unlock the offshore bank accounts of another gangster whose family McGregor had gunned down years earlier. The dead gangster's daughter has grown up and is using a crossbow to kill everybody who killed her family. A chanteuse at McGregor's club is feeding inside info to a tough Puerto Rican lesbian police detective who has never gotten her due inside the department because men.
This crew—Harley, the cop, the crossbow user, the chanteuse, and the teenager—become the superhero fighting squad of the title. I suppose if you know about all this from the DC comic-book universe, this origin story of the Birds of Prey might give you a thrill up your leg. As for me, by the second hour of this root canal pretending to be a movie, I was so longing for escape that I was reminded of a statement by the producer of Roseanne Barr's original sitcom after a single year of working with her: "I have chosen not to return to the show next season. Instead, my wife and I have decided to share a vacation in the relative peace and quiet of Beirut."


freebeacon--2020-02-09--Biden Makes First Sunday Morning Show Appearance in 1,155 Days

Former vice president Joe Biden appeared on ABC 's This Week Sunday , his first interview on a major Sunday morning program in more than three years .
His taped appearance with anchor George Stephanopoulos did not just mark his first interview on the Sunday morning circuit since launching his 2020 bid in April .
Biden 's 1,155-day streak stretches further back , to when Jake Tapper last interviewed him for CNN 's State of the Union on Dec. 11 , 2016 .
Biden admitted during his appearance that he faces an `` uphill fight '' in this week 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staring at another disappointing showing after likely finishing in fourth place in the Iowa caucuses .
He also discussed the attack ad he released Saturday against former South Bend , Ind.
, mayor Pete Buttigieg for his lack of experience .
Washington Free Beacon archives show the last time Biden appeared on This Week was July 31 , 2016 .
His last appearance on CBS 's Face The Nation was Oct. 30 , 2016 , and his last time on Meet The Press was Oct. 16 , 2016 .
Fox News told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News Sunday for an interview since Sept. 16 , 2007 , more than a year before his election to the vice presidency .
While Biden has made other media appearances as a presidential candidate—such as an interview in October for CBS 's Sunday night news magazine 60 Minutes—his avoidance of the Sunday morning shows had drawn criticism from the media .
CNN host Jake Tapper called Biden out for skipping the shows at the conclusion of his interview last week with Buttigieg .
CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter in September also criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Former vice president Joe Biden appeared on ABC's This Week Sunday, his first interview on a major Sunday morning program in more than three years.
His taped appearance with anchor George Stephanopoulos did not just mark his first interview on the Sunday morning circuit since launching his 2020 bid in April. Biden's 1,155-day streak stretches further back, to when Jake Tapper last interviewed him for CNN's State of the Union on Dec. 11, 2016.
Biden admitted during his appearance that he faces an "uphill fight" in this week's New Hampshire primary, where he is staring at another disappointing showing after likely finishing in fourth place in the Iowa caucuses. He also discussed the attack ad he released Saturday against former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg for his lack of experience.
Washington Free Beacon archives show the last time Biden appeared on This Week was July 31, 2016. His last appearance on CBS's Face The Nation was Oct. 30, 2016, and his last time on Meet The Press was Oct. 16, 2016. Fox News told the Free Beacon Biden hasn't appeared on Fox News Sunday for an interview since Sept. 16, 2007, more than a year before his election to the vice presidency.
While Biden has made other media appearances as a presidential candidate—such as an interview in October for CBS's Sunday night news magazine 60 Minutes—his avoidance of the Sunday morning shows had drawn criticism from the media. CNN host Jake Tapper called Biden out for skipping the shows at the conclusion of his interview last week with Buttigieg. CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter in September also criticized Biden for not doing Sunday shows.


freebeacon--2020-02-09--Sanders Dodges on Unfulfilled Promise to Release Medical Records

Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) on Sunday waved away concerns about his unfulfilled promise to disclose his medical records before the first votes were cast this election cycle .
NBC 's Meet the Press anchor Chuck Todd pushed the presidential candidate on his promise last September to release his full records .
Sanders at the time said he would release full medical documentation before the first votes were cast—a deadline that , with Iowa 's Democratic caucus last Monday , has now passed .
Sanders demurred , claiming that `` we have released as much documentation I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` But no other candidate has had a heart attack , '' Todd told Sanders .
`` You can start releasing medical records and it never ends , '' Sanders said .
`` We have released the substantive part of all of our medical records .
We have cardiologists who have [ confirmed ] I am in good health .
I am in good health . ''
Thus far Sanders has only released letters from his physicians , not full records .
That choice has attracted criticism from a number of corners , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which criticized Sanders earlier this month for not making good on his promise of a full disclosure .
`` Mr. Sanders , like everyone running for president and currently serving as president , should be totally forthcoming about his health .
The inadequacy of doctor letters in lieu of records was underscored in 2016 by the ludicrous letter from then-candidate Donald Trump 's gastroenterologist , '' the board wrote .
`` So far , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, 70 , has provided the most information , releasing a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting medical data .
Former vice president Joe Biden , 77 , released a three-page letter from his physician outlining his current condition and medical history . ''
The 78-year-old Sanders suffered a heart attack last October .
He repeatedly promised to disclose his medical records before and after the incident took place .
`` The people do have a right to know about the health of a senator , somebody who 's running for president of the United States , full disclosure , '' Sanders told CNN ’ s chief medical correspondent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` And , we will make at the appropriate time , all of our medical records public for you or anybody else who wants to see them . ''

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Sunday waved away concerns about his unfulfilled promise to disclose his medical records before the first votes were cast this election cycle.
NBC's Meet the Press anchor Chuck Todd pushed the presidential candidate on his promise last September to release his full records. Sanders at the time said he would release full medical documentation before the first votes were cast—a deadline that, with Iowa's Democratic caucus last Monday, has now passed.
Sanders demurred, claiming that "we have released as much documentation I think as any other candidate."
"But no other candidate has had a heart attack," Todd told Sanders.
"You can start releasing medical records and it never ends," Sanders said. "We have released the substantive part of all of our medical records. We have cardiologists who have [confirmed] I am in good health. I am in good health."
Thus far Sanders has only released letters from his physicians, not full records. That choice has attracted criticism from a number of corners, including the Washington Post editorial board, which criticized Sanders earlier this month for not making good on his promise of a full disclosure.
"Mr. Sanders, like everyone running for president and currently serving as president, should be totally forthcoming about his health. The inadequacy of doctor letters in lieu of records was underscored in 2016 by the ludicrous letter from then-candidate Donald Trump's gastroenterologist," the board wrote. "So far, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), 70, has provided the most information, releasing a letter from her physician and five pages of supporting medical data. Former vice president Joe Biden, 77, released a three-page letter from his physician outlining his current condition and medical history."
The 78-year-old Sanders suffered a heart attack last October. He repeatedly promised to disclose his medical records before and after the incident took place.
"The people do have a right to know about the health of a senator, somebody who's running for president of the United States, full disclosure," Sanders told CNN’s chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, following the incident. "And, we will make at the appropriate time, all of our medical records public for you or anybody else who wants to see them."


freebeacon--2020-02-09--Buttigieg: Heroin Possession Won’t Be Illegal Under My Administration

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on Sunday that under his administration , heroin possession would not be illegal or would at most be a misdemeanor .
`` Mayor , you not only want to decriminalize marijuana , you want to decriminalize all drug possession .
You say the better answer is treatment , not incarceration , '' Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace said .
`` Is n't the fact that it 's illegal to have , to possess meth and heroin , does n't that at least in some way , the fact that it 's illegal act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place ? ''
`` I think what we need to focus on is where you have distribution , '' Buttigieg said .
`` Possession would not be dealt with through incarceration . ''
Wallace pointed out that Buttigieg 's website says that all drugs would be decriminalized .
Buttigieg acknowledged his stance but said drug possession could also be a misdemeanor , a class of offense usually not punished with prison time .
He argued that jailing drug users `` shows a profound failure in our country 's mental health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point is not the legal niceties , '' Buttigieg said .
`` The point is that we have learned through 40 years of a failed war on drugs that criminalizing addiction does not work .
Not only that , the incarceration does more harm than the offense that it 's intended to deal with . ''
Recently released data from the Centers for Disease Control found that there were roughly 67,000 drug overdose deaths in 2018 , the second highest figure on record .
These deaths are largely driven by the synthetic opioid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methamphetamine , all of which Buttigieg would legalize or decriminalize possession of .

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on Sunday that under his administration, heroin possession would not be illegal or would at most be a misdemeanor.
"Mayor, you not only want to decriminalize marijuana, you want to decriminalize all drug possession. You say the better answer is treatment, not incarceration," Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace said. "Isn't the fact that it's illegal to have, to possess meth and heroin, doesn't that at least in some way, the fact that it's illegal act as some deterrent to trying it in the first place?"
"I think what we need to focus on is where you have distribution," Buttigieg said. "Possession would not be dealt with through incarceration."
Wallace pointed out that Buttigieg's website says that all drugs would be decriminalized. Buttigieg acknowledged his stance but said drug possession could also be a misdemeanor, a class of offense usually not punished with prison time. He argued that jailing drug users "shows a profound failure in our country's mental health and addiction treatment system."
"The point is not the legal niceties," Buttigieg said. "The point is that we have learned through 40 years of a failed war on drugs that criminalizing addiction does not work. Not only that, the incarceration does more harm than the offense that it's intended to deal with."
Recently released data from the Centers for Disease Control found that there were roughly 67,000 drug overdose deaths in 2018, the second highest figure on record. These deaths are largely driven by the synthetic opioid fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, all of which Buttigieg would legalize or decriminalize possession of.


freebeacon--2020-02-09--DNC Chair Says Dems Should Dump Caucuses, Change Order of States After Iowa Disaster

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez on Sunday said he believes the DNC should eliminate caucuses and move to primaries after last week 's fiasco in Iowa .
`` I do think it needs to be state election officials running elections , '' Perez said during an appearance on CNN 's State of the Union .
Perez expressed his discontent with the botched Iowa caucus , the results of which remain unclear , and noted that he has supported primaries , which are administered by state election officials , over caucuses , which are run by state parties , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years ago that held caucuses .
Seven of them are now primary states , '' Perez said .
`` Iowa chose to keep their caucus status and I think what we learned from all the mistakes that were made— it 's undeniably unacceptable . ''
In addition to eliminating the caucus system , Perez said Democrats should discuss the order in which states vote in the primary .
`` Is Iowa about to lose their first-in-the-nation caucus status ? ''
CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked .
`` Well , that 's the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election cycle , '' Perez said .
Perez 's threat to revoke Iowa 's privileged first-in-the-nation status comes after a disastrous caucus last Monday evening .
Rule changes and the use of a new app led to a delay in the announcement of any results until almost 24 hours after voting began , while subsequent waves of released results showed inconsistencies and errors on the part of the Iowa Democratic Party .
At present , it remains unclear whether Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) or former mayor Pete Buttigieg won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a `` recanvass '' of the results .
The disaster has caused some in the party to call for Perez 's resignation , with Rep. Marcia Fudge ( D. , Ohio ) for example saying that Perez `` does n't lead on anything . ''
Asked Sunday by Tapper if he was planning to resign , Perez responded , `` absolutely not . ''
`` The last three years , my job was to rebuild our infrastructure , to win elections .
When you do that , sometimes you have to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez on Sunday said he believes the DNC should eliminate caucuses and move to primaries after last week's fiasco in Iowa.
"I do think it needs to be state election officials running elections," Perez said during an appearance on CNN's State of the Union.
Perez expressed his discontent with the botched Iowa caucus, the results of which remain unclear, and noted that he has supported primaries, which are administered by state election officials, over caucuses, which are run by state parties, since 2016.
"There were 14 states four years ago that held caucuses. Seven of them are now primary states," Perez said. "Iowa chose to keep their caucus status and I think what we learned from all the mistakes that were made— it's undeniably unacceptable."
In addition to eliminating the caucus system, Perez said Democrats should discuss the order in which states vote in the primary.
"Is Iowa about to lose their first-in-the-nation caucus status?" CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked.
"Well, that's the conversation that will absolutely happen after this election cycle," Perez said.
Perez's threat to revoke Iowa's privileged first-in-the-nation status comes after a disastrous caucus last Monday evening. Rule changes and the use of a new app led to a delay in the announcement of any results until almost 24 hours after voting began, while subsequent waves of released results showed inconsistencies and errors on the part of the Iowa Democratic Party. At present, it remains unclear whether Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) or former mayor Pete Buttigieg won the caucus, with Perez himself calling for a "recanvass" of the results.
The disaster has caused some in the party to call for Perez's resignation, with Rep. Marcia Fudge (D., Ohio) for example saying that Perez "doesn't lead on anything." Asked Sunday by Tapper if he was planning to resign, Perez responded, "absolutely not."
"The last three years, my job was to rebuild our infrastructure, to win elections. When you do that, sometimes you have to make tough decisions," Perez said.


freebeacon--2020-02-09--Sanders: I’m Not a Communist

Sanders: I’m Not a Communist

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) declared on Sunday that he is not a communist .
Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace played a clip of President Donald Trump calling Sanders a communist and saying he got married in the Soviet Union during the Cold War .
Sanders laughed at the clip and called Trump a `` pathological liar . ''
`` I 'm not a communist , '' he said .
He also said that he did not get married in Moscow , but was there to create `` a sister city program with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did travel to the Soviet Union for his honeymoon , where he helped set up the program and criticized the United States ' foreign and domestic policy .
Wallace asked Sanders how , if he were the nominee , he would overcome the the baggage that comes with Sanders 's proud identification as a `` democratic socialist . ''
`` Chris , I want to make two points on that , '' Sanders said .
`` In many respects , in many respects , we are a socialist society today .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into all areas . ''

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) declared on Sunday that he is not a communist.
Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace played a clip of President Donald Trump calling Sanders a communist and saying he got married in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Sanders laughed at the clip and called Trump a "pathological liar."
"I'm not a communist," he said.
He also said that he did not get married in Moscow, but was there to create "a sister city program with the city of Yaroslavl." Sanders did travel to the Soviet Union for his honeymoon, where he helped set up the program and criticized the United States' foreign and domestic policy.
Wallace asked Sanders how, if he were the nominee, he would overcome the the baggage that comes with Sanders's proud identification as a "democratic socialist."
"Chris, I want to make two points on that," Sanders said. "In many respects, in many respects, we are a socialist society today. We have a huge budget, it puts money into all areas."


freebeacon--2020-02-09--Sanders Dismisses Question About His Support For a Maximum Wage

Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) on Sunday refused to discuss his support for a `` maximum wage '' during his early days in Vermont politics , calling the unearthing of such radical proposals not `` productive . ''
`` Early in your political career , way back in 1974 , you said that it should be illegal to earn more money than someone could spend in his or her lifetime , '' CNN 's State of the Union anchor Jake Tapper said .
`` You proposed a maximum wage cap on the highest earners . ''
Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current political views .
`` Did you go back to my third grade essay when I was in P.S .
197 ? ''
Sanders asked .
`` We could go back to things I said in the '70s , I don ’ t think it ’ s productive . ''
During his early political career as a member of the Vermont Liberty Union Party , Sanders wanted to `` make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime , '' according to newspaper accounts from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax on income above $ 1 million a year , saying he `` would recycle this money for the public need . ''
The `` maximum wage '' proposal is far from the only far-left idea floated by the young Sanders .
As the Washington Free Beacon previously reported , in 1972 Sanders called for the legalization of all drugs and said American actions in Vietnam were `` almost as bad as what Hitler did . ''

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Sunday refused to discuss his support for a "maximum wage" during his early days in Vermont politics, calling the unearthing of such radical proposals not "productive."
"Early in your political career, way back in 1974, you said that it should be illegal to earn more money than someone could spend in his or her lifetime," CNN's State of the Union anchor Jake Tapper said. "You proposed a maximum wage cap on the highest earners."
Sanders dismissed the question as irrelevant to his current political views.
"Did you go back to my third grade essay when I was in P.S. 197?" Sanders asked. "We could go back to things I said in the '70s, I don’t think it’s productive."
During his early political career as a member of the Vermont Liberty Union Party, Sanders wanted to "make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime," according to newspaper accounts from the time. Sanders promised a 100 percent tax on income above $1 million a year, saying he "would recycle this money for the public need."
The "maximum wage" proposal is far from the only far-left idea floated by the young Sanders. As the Washington Free Beacon previously reported, in 1972 Sanders called for the legalization of all drugs and said American actions in Vietnam were "almost as bad as what Hitler did."


freebeacon--2020-02-09--Worker Accuses Labor Union of Religious Discrimination

A Catholic woman filed a federal discrimination complaint alleging that a major labor union forced her to pay for its pro-abortion activism .
In a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , Tennessee resident Dorothy Frame said that Laborers ’ International Union of North America ( LiUNA ) has forced her to pay union dues , despite her request for a religious exemption .
`` Ms. Frame is a Catholic , and she believes that she should not support a labor union that supports abortion , because abortion involves the unjustified destruction of human life , '' the filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s support of pro-abortion initiatives and politicians , Frame requested a religious accommodation on July 25 , 2019 .
The accommodation would stop the deduction of union dues from Frame ’ s paychecks from J & J Worldwide Services .
In August , the union denied her request and responded by demanding evidence for her claims that membership in the union violated her religious beliefs and that the union supports pro-abortion initiatives .
Frame provided a letter from a priest `` in support of her religious objection , '' according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and asked Frame to provide `` evidence supporting [ her ] conclusion that any portion of [ her ] Union dues supports ‘ pro choice ’ organizations or candidates . ''
LiUNA represents more than 500,000 members and is affiliated with the AFL-CIO , which has voiced support for Planned Parenthood and united with the abortion provider to target Republican politicians in state races .
LiUNA also donated to the pro-Democratic House Majority PAC and the pro-Hillary Clinton Priorities USA PAC , according to OpenSecrets .
The union did not respond to requests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union representative rejected Frame 's follow-up requests because of his `` supposedly superior religious views , '' the filing alleges .
The union also questioned if Frame ’ s objection stemmed from a failed run for a leadership position in the union , according to a copy of the union ’ s response provided to the Washington Free Beacon .
`` The Union never responded to this further proof , has not accommodated Ms. Frame , and instead continued to have dues deducted from her salary in violation of her religious beliefs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Frame filed the complaint with the EEOC , the government agency `` responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee '' for several factors , including religion .
She is being represented by the National Right to Work Foundation , which also recently helped a child actress take on the Screen Actors Guild .
Foundation vice president Patrick Semmens criticized the union for forcing Frame to choose between keeping her job and violating her religious beliefs .
`` Countless workers have been able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Ms. Frame is requesting , '' he said .
`` Yet rather than simply respect her rights , Laborers Union bosses are making it necessary for her to turn to the EEOC to end this illegal religious discrimination , demonstrating once again that union officials are far too willing to violate the rights of the very workers they claim to represent just to fill their coffers with forced union dues . ''
National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix added that workers should not be required to pay for union activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrimination is a blatant violation of federal law , union boss demands , in this case , serve as a reminder why no worker in America should be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose , whether their opposition is religious-based or for other reasons , '' he said in a statement .

A Catholic woman filed a federal discrimination complaint alleging that a major labor union forced her to pay for its pro-abortion activism.
In a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tennessee resident Dorothy Frame said that Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA) has forced her to pay union dues, despite her request for a religious exemption.
"Ms. Frame is a Catholic, and she believes that she should not support a labor union that supports abortion, because abortion involves the unjustified destruction of human life," the filing says.
After learning about the group’s support of pro-abortion initiatives and politicians, Frame requested a religious accommodation on July 25, 2019. The accommodation would stop the deduction of union dues from Frame’s paychecks from J&J Worldwide Services. In August, the union denied her request and responded by demanding evidence for her claims that membership in the union violated her religious beliefs and that the union supports pro-abortion initiatives.
Frame provided a letter from a priest "in support of her religious objection," according to the filing. The union rejected that evidence and asked Frame to provide "evidence supporting [her] conclusion that any portion of [her] Union dues supports ‘pro choice’ organizations or candidates."
LiUNA represents more than 500,000 members and is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, which has voiced support for Planned Parenthood and united with the abortion provider to target Republican politicians in state races. LiUNA also donated to the pro-Democratic House Majority PAC and the pro-Hillary Clinton Priorities USA PAC, according to OpenSecrets. The union did not respond to requests for comment about the suit.
A union representative rejected Frame's follow-up requests because of his "supposedly superior religious views," the filing alleges. The union also questioned if Frame’s objection stemmed from a failed run for a leadership position in the union, according to a copy of the union’s response provided to the Washington Free Beacon.
"The Union never responded to this further proof, has not accommodated Ms. Frame, and instead continued to have dues deducted from her salary in violation of her religious beliefs," Frame’s filing stated.
Frame filed the complaint with the EEOC, the government agency "responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee" for several factors, including religion. She is being represented by the National Right to Work Foundation, which also recently helped a child actress take on the Screen Actors Guild. Foundation vice president Patrick Semmens criticized the union for forcing Frame to choose between keeping her job and violating her religious beliefs.
"Countless workers have been able to obtain religious accommodations like the one that Ms. Frame is requesting," he said. "Yet rather than simply respect her rights, Laborers Union bosses are making it necessary for her to turn to the EEOC to end this illegal religious discrimination, demonstrating once again that union officials are far too willing to violate the rights of the very workers they claim to represent just to fill their coffers with forced union dues."
National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix added that workers should not be required to pay for union activities they oppose.
"While such religious discrimination is a blatant violation of federal law, union boss demands, in this case, serve as a reminder why no worker in America should be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose, whether their opposition is religious-based or for other reasons," he said in a statement.


freebeacon--2020-02-09--Review: ‘The Manipulators’ by Peter Hasson

If there is one word to describe The Manipulators , the excellent new book from Daily Caller editor Peter J. Hasson , it must be `` outrageous . ''
That is not to say that Hasson 's work—staid and thoroughly researched—is outrageous , but that the story he tells should leave any sensible reader , conservative or otherwise , outraged .
The Manipulators represents one of the first major journalistic investigations of the world of big tech written from the right .
Using his own beat reporting and others ' work , Hasson takes us inside the Silicon Valley firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His research reveals a disturbing pattern of hostility to and silencing of conservative voices , which he links to an all-encompassing , far-left corporate monoculture .
The resultant work should leave any reader , conservative or otherwise , concerned .
The first half of the book focuses on Facebook , Twitter , Google , and Google subsidiary YouTube , with each chapter following the same basic schema .
Hasson outlines the enormous power these companies have—7 in 10 Americans use Facebook , three in four use YouTube , etc .
He then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are overwhelmingly left-leaning—the infamous post-2016 `` all hands '' meeting at Google , e.g.
, or the hate directed at Facebook VP Joel Kaplan after he publicly supported Brett Kavanaugh .
Lastly , he shows how these companies ' implementation of ostensibly neutral speech restrictions have reliably resulted in bans for and silencing of conservatives while hard-left speech skates inexplicably by .
The book 's second act zooms out to look at the way that other organizations cooperate with big tech 's censorship project .
Hasson savages supposedly neutral groups like Media Matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trusted flaggers '' for social media sites in spite of their clear left-wing bias .
He also looks at the way social media have worked to boost left-wing news sources , like Huffington Post and the now-defunct ThinkProgress , while tipping the scales against openly conservative ones .
The whole picture is , in a word , damning .
Can we say for certain that Facebook , Twitter , and Google do not allow their overwhelmingly left-wing employee-base to affect their decisions ?
Certainly , correlation does not imply causation , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges of anti-conservative bias—of which there have been many—social media firms have more or less pleaded incompetence .
When conservatives identify patterns of bias against themselves , they argue , what they are really doing is stitching together discrete , unrelated failures of the sort that any person who understands content moderation would expect .
Hasson 's book is subject to this argument , and critics will no doubt make use of it .
But , even while The Manipulators does make a compelling case that there is something fishy about big tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove that social media platforms are waging a deliberate war on conservatives .
To borrow a phrase from the law , Hasson does not really need to prove overt discrimination , even if he goes a long way toward doing so .
Rather , at most The Manipulators needs to prove disparate treatment—that even if Facebook and Twitter and Google are merely incompetent rather than malicious , the net effect is still the silencing of conservatives .
Maybe all of the bans are discrete failures , but that leaves unaddressed the question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too high , or the costs of failure too great .
Hasson 's goal—to document how big tech silences conservatives—is a narrow one , and he fulfills it well .
What The Manipulators largely lacks ( although not really to its detriment ) is an account of what we should do about this .
To the extent that Hasson does offer a proscription , it is a personal one , charging readers not to rely on government to control big tech , but to keep fighting the good fight online ( and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to him ) .
Such individual-level approaches are certainly admirable , but they may not be up to snuff .
A whole debate currently rages in Washington , as figures on both left and right call for a crackdown on tech firms that they see as examples of monopolistic concentration .
Distaste for Facebook is one of the few issues that can even galvanize libertarian conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz ( R. , Texas ) to suggest that , perhaps , government ought to do something .
The political solutions put forward by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law to Facebook or Google—would make for a bigger hammer , but it is unclear if it is the hammer we need .
When it comes to social media in particular , The Manipulators suggests that the problem is not so much economic concentration , but the concentration of speech , and the concurrent power to police it .
Over the past decade , much of our democratic life has moved online—but are we better off for it ?
Before social media , political conversations were comparatively much harder to have , certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permits .
This meant that they were also much harder to police—the concentration of speech in one place means that it is easier to manage .
For much of its early history , the internet was used largely by skilled users with niche interests , able to navigate a more decentralized web .
These users tended to prefer a sort of free speech absolutism , which was readily enforced by the ease of `` exit '' from one chat board to another .
As normal people came online through the late 2000s and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems that provided all of their services in one place .
They also demanded services that their friends already used—which means that for every user a service got , its probability of getting additional users increased .
Firms like Facebook and Google are market dominant in large part because they did such a good job of meeting those demands .
At the same time , however , that concentration both created a demand for a more heavily moderated internet—the median user became less interested in radical speech—and made the median user less competent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to `` exit '' a platform they did not like .
There are enormous discursive , even pro-democratic , benefits to modern concentration .
Twitter disintermediates relationships between politicians and constituents , Facebook permits debate and discussion at a mass scale , and Google collects more information than any republic reliant on literate citizenship has ever had access to .
At the same time , as The Manipulators makes clear , concentration permits the exercise of power by private firms over these same channels of information .
Even if the resultant abuses are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are surely not ) , the effect is the same .
Some voices are silenced not because they are wrong , but because they fail the tests of the algorithmic powers-that-be .
The question then with which The Manipulators should leave citizens and policymakers alike is : Are we better off with this kind of power in the hands of so few ?
Is American democracy healthier because a handful of firms let us talk to each other , while simultaneously silencing certain voices ?
Or were we better before , when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also less readily controllable ?
On this matter , Hasson is largely silent .
From the story he tells , however , the answer seems loud and clear .

If there is one word to describe The Manipulators, the excellent new book from Daily Caller editor Peter J. Hasson, it must be "outrageous." That is not to say that Hasson's work—staid and thoroughly researched—is outrageous, but that the story he tells should leave any sensible reader, conservative or otherwise, outraged.
The Manipulators represents one of the first major journalistic investigations of the world of big tech written from the right. Using his own beat reporting and others' work, Hasson takes us inside the Silicon Valley firms that have come to dominate our lives. His research reveals a disturbing pattern of hostility to and silencing of conservative voices, which he links to an all-encompassing, far-left corporate monoculture. The resultant work should leave any reader, conservative or otherwise, concerned.
The first half of the book focuses on Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Google subsidiary YouTube, with each chapter following the same basic schema. Hasson outlines the enormous power these companies have—7 in 10 Americans use Facebook, three in four use YouTube, etc. He then presents the evidence that their corporate cultures are overwhelmingly left-leaning—the infamous post-2016 "all hands" meeting at Google, e.g., or the hate directed at Facebook VP Joel Kaplan after he publicly supported Brett Kavanaugh. Lastly, he shows how these companies' implementation of ostensibly neutral speech restrictions have reliably resulted in bans for and silencing of conservatives while hard-left speech skates inexplicably by.
The book's second act zooms out to look at the way that other organizations cooperate with big tech's censorship project. Hasson savages supposedly neutral groups like Media Matters and the SPLC that have become "trusted flaggers" for social media sites in spite of their clear left-wing bias. He also looks at the way social media have worked to boost left-wing news sources, like Huffington Post and the now-defunct ThinkProgress, while tipping the scales against openly conservative ones.
The whole picture is, in a word, damning. Can we say for certain that Facebook, Twitter, and Google do not allow their overwhelmingly left-wing employee-base to affect their decisions? Certainly, correlation does not imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively.
Against charges of anti-conservative bias—of which there have been many—social media firms have more or less pleaded incompetence. When conservatives identify patterns of bias against themselves, they argue, what they are really doing is stitching together discrete, unrelated failures of the sort that any person who understands content moderation would expect.
Hasson's book is subject to this argument, and critics will no doubt make use of it. But, even while The Manipulators does make a compelling case that there is something fishy about big tech, it does not actually need to prove that social media platforms are waging a deliberate war on conservatives. To borrow a phrase from the law, Hasson does not really need to prove overt discrimination, even if he goes a long way toward doing so. Rather, at most The Manipulators needs to prove disparate treatment—that even if Facebook and Twitter and Google are merely incompetent rather than malicious, the net effect is still the silencing of conservatives. Maybe all of the bans are discrete failures, but that leaves unaddressed the question of whether or not the failure rate is too high, or the costs of failure too great.
Hasson's goal—to document how big tech silences conservatives—is a narrow one, and he fulfills it well. What The Manipulators largely lacks (although not really to its detriment) is an account of what we should do about this. To the extent that Hasson does offer a proscription, it is a personal one, charging readers not to rely on government to control big tech, but to keep fighting the good fight online (and, of course, to report further abuses to him).
Such individual-level approaches are certainly admirable, but they may not be up to snuff. A whole debate currently rages in Washington, as figures on both left and right call for a crackdown on tech firms that they see as examples of monopolistic concentration. Distaste for Facebook is one of the few issues that can even galvanize libertarian conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) to suggest that, perhaps, government ought to do something.
The political solutions put forward by these voices—usually the renewed application of antitrust law to Facebook or Google—would make for a bigger hammer, but it is unclear if it is the hammer we need. When it comes to social media in particular, The Manipulators suggests that the problem is not so much economic concentration, but the concentration of speech, and the concurrent power to police it. Over the past decade, much of our democratic life has moved online—but are we better off for it?
Before social media, political conversations were comparatively much harder to have, certainly at the scale that the internet now permits. This meant that they were also much harder to police—the concentration of speech in one place means that it is easier to manage. For much of its early history, the internet was used largely by skilled users with niche interests, able to navigate a more decentralized web. These users tended to prefer a sort of free speech absolutism, which was readily enforced by the ease of "exit" from one chat board to another.
As normal people came online through the late 2000s and 2010s, however, they demanded easy-to-use systems that provided all of their services in one place. They also demanded services that their friends already used—which means that for every user a service got, its probability of getting additional users increased. Firms like Facebook and Google are market dominant in large part because they did such a good job of meeting those demands. At the same time, however, that concentration both created a demand for a more heavily moderated internet—the median user became less interested in radical speech—and made the median user less competent, less willing, and less able to "exit" a platform they did not like.
There are enormous discursive, even pro-democratic, benefits to modern concentration. Twitter disintermediates relationships between politicians and constituents, Facebook permits debate and discussion at a mass scale, and Google collects more information than any republic reliant on literate citizenship has ever had access to.
At the same time, as The Manipulators makes clear, concentration permits the exercise of power by private firms over these same channels of information. Even if the resultant abuses are entirely accidental (and some of them are surely not), the effect is the same. Some voices are silenced not because they are wrong, but because they fail the tests of the algorithmic powers-that-be.
The question then with which The Manipulators should leave citizens and policymakers alike is: Are we better off with this kind of power in the hands of so few? Is American democracy healthier because a handful of firms let us talk to each other, while simultaneously silencing certain voices? Or were we better before, when we perhaps had less conversation, but it was also less readily controllable? On this matter, Hasson is largely silent. From the story he tells, however, the answer seems loud and clear.