theintercept--2020-01-13--Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years

and as recently as 2018 , former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget .
Last week , Sen. Bernie Sanders highlighted Biden ’ s record on Social Security in prosecuting the case that Biden isn ’ t the most electable candidate .
The issue could be raised again in Tuesday night ’ s debate .
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden ’ s Social Security record , the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context , however , Biden ’ s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark .
Indeed , Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years .
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994 , Biden ’ s support for cutting Social Security , and his general advocacy for budget austerity , made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party ’ s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’ 90s .
“ When I argued that we should freeze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well , ” he told the Senate in 1995 .
“ I meant Medicare and Medicaid .
I meant veterans ’ benefits .
I meant every single solitary thing in the government .
And I not only tried it once , I tried it twice , I tried it a third time , and I tried it a fourth time.
” ( A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out , cutting the program ’ s benefit . )
What Biden was expressing was a common sentiment among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1980s and ’ 90s — the belief that old tax-and-spend liberals were out , and that a type of “ New Democrat ” was needed , one who understood the necessity of fiscal restraint .
Cutting spending was the only way , he argued , to salvage what was left of the Great Society and New Deal .
The mentality of Biden-style Democrats — that the best the party could do was play defense — was dominant for a generation ; it ’ s now being fundamentally challenged not just in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
Biden himself , at least on his campaign website , now supports making Social Security more generous , not less .
But that ’ s at odds with decades of his own advocacy , a record that could become a major political liability among voters concerned Biden will finally get his wish to trim back Social Security checks .
Because about half of black seniors on Social Security rely on it as their primary means of support , any trimming of the program hits those beneficiaries particularly hard .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and interviews , has often taken pains to let listeners know that he ’ s taking an unpopular stance , being explicit about the risk he knows he ’ s taking .
“ One of the things my political advisers say to me , is , whoa , don ’ t touch that third rail , ” Biden told Tim Russert on “ Meet the Press , ” while running for president in 2007 .
With this year ’ s presidential contest being fought over the terrain of electability , Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguably the most popular government program in existence , is potentially a major liability among older voters — and hypocrisy has never held Trump back from making an effective political attack .
Biden ’ s historical position also stands in stark contrast to Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , both of whom support increasing benefits and have offered ways to make the program solvent indefinitely .
“ As Bernie Sanders himself said in 2015 — after all of these quotes — ‘ Joe Biden is a man who has devoted his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wellbeing of working families and the middle class , ’ ” said Andrew Bates , a spokesperson for Biden .
on cutting Social Security dates back to the Reagan era .
One of Ronald Reagan ’ s first major moves as president was to implement a mammoth tax cut , tilted toward the wealthy , and to increase defense spending .
Biden , a Delaware senator at the time , supported both moves .
The heightened spending and reduced revenue focused public attention on the debt and deficit , giving fuel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Constitution .
In the midst of that debate , Biden teamed up with Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to call for a freeze on federal spending , and insisted on including Social Security in that freeze , even as the Reagan administration fought to protect the program from cuts .
It was part of the Democratic approach at the time not just to match Republicans , but to get to their right at times as well , as Biden also did on criminal justice policy .
“ So , when those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Party say to me , ‘ How do you expect me to vote for your proposal ?
Does it not freeze Social Security COLAs for one year ?
Are we not saying there will be no cost-of-living increases for one year ?
’ The answer to that is ‘ Yes , that is what I am saying , ’ ” Biden said in a Senate floor speech in April 1984 , referring to the adjustment that millions of seniors look for every year .
Biden was facing reelection to the Senate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a heavily Republican cycle , and continued returning to the issue of Social Security .
His plan with Grassley was backed , the New York Times reported in May 1984 , by a bevy of business trade groups , “ including the Chamber of Commerce of the United States , the National Federation of Independent Businesses , Business Executives for National Security and the National Association of Manufacturers.
” The Biden-Grassley plan was ultimately rejected , but Biden never wavered on it , arguing in 1988 that had he been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been able to save other social programs and force Republicans to cut defense spending .
“ I introduced an amendment , notwithstanding my quote liberal credentials , of freezing the federal budget , absolute freeze , ” Biden boasted .
“ I did it for a simple reason : I sat on the Budget Committee for 11 years .
And I ’ d find the same thing occur every time .
We ’ d start off with grandiose ideas of how we ’ re going to cut the budget .
We would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touch the defense budget , and we couldn ’ t touch the interest on the debt .
Which meant that out of a trillion-dollar budget , that left us only $ 156 billion And what we would do each year is we would go out and cut out education , food stamps , Head Start , [ welfare ] payments , on down the line , everything that I cared about got cut , because at the very end , we ’ d say , ‘ Well , we ’ ve got ta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the path of least resistance.
” That political approach — that by ceding to Republicans , they will respond by compromising in return — has been thoroughly discredited by the last 40 years of events , though it remains the animating argument of Biden ’ s campaign .
In November 1995 , he again reminded the public of his deficit hawkery .
“ I am a Democrat that voted for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget .
I have introduced on four occasions — four occasions — entire plans to balance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate floor .
“ I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending , including Social Security , including everything.
” “ When I introduced my budget freeze proposal years ago , the liberals of my party said , ‘ It ’ s an awful thing you are doing , Joe .
All the programs we care about , you are freezing them — money for the blind , the disabled , education and so on , ’ ” Biden continued .
“ My argument then is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strongest , most compelling reason to be for this amendment — or an amendment — that if we do not do that , all the things I care most about are going to be gone — gone.
” The first few months of 1995 were taken up with debate over another GOP-led balanced budget amendment , with Biden arguing forcefully to exclude Social Security from it .
“ After the year 2014 , we will be in deficit in the Social Security system , ” he warned .
“ It seems pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things : One , they need the Social Security dollars to make the deficit look like it is less than it is , and then the next step is they are going to need to try to deal with changing it to increase the amount of money they get in the trust funds to make the deficit look even less , which means that Social Security is going to get hit.
” Biden pushed for an amendment to carve Social Security out of the balanced budget amendment .
Clear as it may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security failed .
Biden voted for the balanced budget amendment anyway , even after his multiple warnings that it would undercut Social Security .
It was , in fact , the argument over Social Security that torpedoed the balanced budget amendment by a single vote on the Senate floor , after it had already passed the House .
“ After days of persuasion , the Republicans supporting the amendment were unable to attract the one last vote they needed for a two-thirds majority , resulting in a victory for Democrats , who raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Social Security trust fund would be safe if the measure became law , ” the New York Times reported in March 1995 .
Biden ’ s inability to bring along one additional Democratic colleague had saved the program , and saved the Constitution from being amended with a draconian fiscal constraint mechanism .
Ironically , the budget would reach balance anyway by the end of the decade , as federal revenue climbed — the result of an economy in hyperdrive thanks to a tech bubble .
President George W. Bush turned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wealthy , and within just a few years , Biden was again calling for cuts to Social Security to deal with the deficit .
In his 2007 interview with Russert as a presidential candidate , the “ Meet the Press ” host asked , “ Senator , we have a deficit .
We have Social Security and Medicare looming .
The number of people on Social Security and Medicare is now 40 million people .
It ’ s going to be 80 million in 15 years .
Would you consider looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ … cost of living , put it all on the table.
” “ The answer is absolutely , ” Biden said , reminding Russert that earlier in his career , he had been part of the small number of senators who had come up with the deal that raised the retirement age , and promised to protect each other from voters outraged at the cuts : I was one of five people — I was the junior guy in the meeting with Bob Dole and George Mitchell when we put Social Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ll never forget what Bob Dole said .
After we reached an agreement about gradually raising the retirement age , etc.
, he said , ‘ Look , here ’ s the deal , we all put our foot in the boat one at a time.
’ And he kicked — he stepped like he was stepping into a boat .
‘ And we all make the following deal .
If any one of the challengers running against the incumbent Democrat or Republicans attack us on this point , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the kind of leadership that is needed .
Social Security ’ s not the hard one to solve .
Medicare , that is the gorilla in the room , and you ’ ve got to put all of it on the table .
At Iowa ’ s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in November 2007 , weeks from the Iowa caucus , Biden again returned to Social Security .
“ The American people know we have to fix Social Security , ” he said .
“ They know we can ’ t grow our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to have to make some tough decisions .
They ’ re ready to make those decisions .
They ’ re ready to step up .
We have to be ready to straightforwardly tell them what we ’ re about to do.
” As vice president , Biden was involved in multiple administration attempts to cut Social Security as part of a “ grand bargain ” with Republicans , all of them blocked by tea party Republicans , who couldn ’ t agree to any tax increases .
In 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said at a conservative event that Biden had privately told him he was supporting of raising the retirement age and means-testing Social Security benefits .
“ I asked the vice president , don ’ t we have to raise the age ?
Wouldn ’ t means-testing and raising the age solve the problem ?
” Paul recounted , with Sens .
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee on stage , adding that Biden said , “ Yes in private , but will not say it in public.
” Paul hadn ’ t been paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , at a Brookings Institution event in April 2018 , Biden addressed Social Security again .
“ Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code .
What ’ s the first thing he decided we had to go after ?
Social Security and Medicare .
Now , we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare , ” Biden said , then added in a whisper : “ That ’ s the only way you can find room to pay for it.
” Last week , the Biden campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and being sarcastic .
Immediately after his whisper , he went into the kinds of adjustments to Social Security he thought should be made , the same type that Paul said he told him supported privately .
“ Now , I don ’ t know a whole lot of people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent or the top 1 percent who are relying on Social Security when they retire .
I don ’ t know a lot of them , ” Biden said , alluding to the need to means-test Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-growth , progressive tax code that treats workers as job creators , as well , not just investors ; that gets rid of unproductive loopholes like stepped-up basis ; and it raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay , it still needs adjustments , but can stay ; and pay for the things we all acknowledge will grow the country.
” When the program is popular , “ adjustment ” is a Washington euphemism for cuts .
But you can count on Trump to use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 , 2020 , 10:30 a.m .
The story has been updated with a statement from the Biden campaign sent after publication .

As early as 1984 and as recently as 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget. Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders highlighted Biden’s record on Social Security in prosecuting the case that Biden isn’t the most electable candidate. The issue could be raised again in Tuesday night’s debate.
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
“The truth is the last election did one thing,” Biden continued. “I do not know whether it really made you guys a majority party for long. I do not know. We will find out. I know one thing it did. What it did was it made sure that there was nobody left on the left in my party who, in fact, said we do not care about moving the budget toward balance.”
"When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well; I meant Medicare and Medicaid; I meant veterans' benefits; I meant every single, solitary thing in the government." — Joe Biden defending the proposed balanced budget amendment, January 1995 pic.twitter.com/5WQ1imljgg — Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) May 3, 2019
What Biden was expressing was a common sentiment among the centrist faction of the party in the 1980s and ’90s — the belief that old tax-and-spend liberals were out, and that a type of “New Democrat” was needed, one who understood the necessity of fiscal restraint. Cutting spending was the only way, he argued, to salvage what was left of the Great Society and New Deal. The mentality of Biden-style Democrats — that the best the party could do was play defense — was dominant for a generation; it’s now being fundamentally challenged not just in the presidential campaign but in congressional primaries across the country.
The mentality of Biden-style Democrats — that the best the party could do was play defense — was dominant for a generation, but is now being fundamentally challenged.
Biden himself, at least on his campaign website, now supports making Social Security more generous, not less. But that’s at odds with decades of his own advocacy, a record that could become a major political liability among voters concerned Biden will finally get his wish to trim back Social Security checks. Because about half of black seniors on Social Security rely on it as their primary means of support, any trimming of the program hits those beneficiaries particularly hard.
Over the years, Biden, in speeches and interviews, has often taken pains to let listeners know that he’s taking an unpopular stance, being explicit about the risk he knows he’s taking.
“One of the things my political advisers say to me, is, whoa, don’t touch that third rail,” Biden told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” while running for president in 2007.
With this year’s presidential contest being fought over the terrain of electability, Biden’s 35-plus-year effort to cut Social Security, arguably the most popular government program in existence, is potentially a major liability among older voters — and hypocrisy has never held Trump back from making an effective political attack. Biden’s historical position also stands in stark contrast to Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom support increasing benefits and have offered ways to make the program solvent indefinitely.
“As Bernie Sanders himself said in 2015 — after all of these quotes — ‘Joe Biden is a man who has devoted his entire life to public service and to the wellbeing of working families and the middle class,’” said Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for Biden.
Biden’s fixation on cutting Social Security dates back to the Reagan era. One of Ronald Reagan’s first major moves as president was to implement a mammoth tax cut, tilted toward the wealthy, and to increase defense spending. Biden, a Delaware senator at the time, supported both moves. The heightened spending and reduced revenue focused public attention on the debt and deficit, giving fuel to a push for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
In the midst of that debate, Biden teamed up with Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to call for a freeze on federal spending, and insisted on including Social Security in that freeze, even as the Reagan administration fought to protect the program from cuts. It was part of the Democratic approach at the time not just to match Republicans, but to get to their right at times as well, as Biden also did on criminal justice policy.
Biden teamed up with Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to call for a freeze on federal spending, and insisted on including Social Security in that freeze.
“So, when those of my friends in the Democratic and Republican Party say to me, ‘How do you expect me to vote for your proposal? Does it not freeze Social Security COLAs for one year? Are we not saying there will be no cost-of-living increases for one year?’ The answer to that is ‘Yes, that is what I am saying,’” Biden said in a Senate floor speech in April 1984, referring to the adjustment that millions of seniors look for every year.
Biden was facing reelection to the Senate in 1984, which was shaping up to be a heavily Republican cycle, and continued returning to the issue of Social Security.
His plan with Grassley was backed, the New York Times reported in May 1984, by a bevy of business trade groups, “including the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, Business Executives for National Security and the National Association of Manufacturers.”
The Biden-Grassley plan was ultimately rejected, but Biden never wavered on it, arguing in 1988 that had he been able to cut Social Security, he’d have been able to save other social programs and force Republicans to cut defense spending.
“I introduced an amendment, notwithstanding my quote liberal credentials, of freezing the federal budget, absolute freeze,” Biden boasted. “I did it for a simple reason: I sat on the Budget Committee for 11 years. And I’d find the same thing occur every time. We’d start off with grandiose ideas of how we’re going to cut the budget. We would never touch entitlements, we would never touch the defense budget, and we couldn’t touch the interest on the debt. Which meant that out of a trillion-dollar budget, that left us only $156 billion And what we would do each year is we would go out and cut out education, food stamps, Head Start, [welfare] payments, on down the line, everything that I cared about got cut, because at the very end, we’d say, ‘Well, we’ve gotta make some cuts.’ And that would be the path of least resistance.”
That political approach — that by ceding to Republicans, they will respond by compromising in return — has been thoroughly discredited by the last 40 years of events, though it remains the animating argument of Biden’s campaign.
In November 1995, he again reminded the public of his deficit hawkery. “I am a Democrat that voted for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I have introduced on four occasions — four occasions — entire plans to balance a budget,” he said on the Senate floor. “I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything.”
“When I introduced my budget freeze proposal years ago, the liberals of my party said, ‘It’s an awful thing you are doing, Joe. All the programs we care about, you are freezing them — money for the blind, the disabled, education and so on,’” Biden continued. “My argument then is one I make now, which is the strongest, most compelling reason to be for this amendment — or an amendment — that if we do not do that, all the things I care most about are going to be gone — gone.”
The first few months of 1995 were taken up with debate over another GOP-led balanced budget amendment, with Biden arguing forcefully to exclude Social Security from it.
“After the year 2014, we will be in deficit in the Social Security system,” he warned. “It seems pretty clear to me this is about two things: One, they need the Social Security dollars to make the deficit look like it is less than it is, and then the next step is they are going to need to try to deal with changing it to increase the amount of money they get in the trust funds to make the deficit look even less, which means that Social Security is going to get hit.”
Biden pushed for an amendment to carve Social Security out of the balanced budget amendment. Clear as it may have been, the amendment to protect Social Security failed. Biden voted for the balanced budget amendment anyway, even after his multiple warnings that it would undercut Social Security.
It was, in fact, the argument over Social Security that torpedoed the balanced budget amendment by a single vote on the Senate floor, after it had already passed the House. “After days of persuasion, the Republicans supporting the amendment were unable to attract the one last vote they needed for a two-thirds majority, resulting in a victory for Democrats, who raised doubts in the final hours about whether the Social Security trust fund would be safe if the measure became law,” the New York Times reported in March 1995. Biden’s inability to bring along one additional Democratic colleague had saved the program, and saved the Constitution from being amended with a draconian fiscal constraint mechanism.
Ironically, the budget would reach balance anyway by the end of the decade, as federal revenue climbed — the result of an economy in hyperdrive thanks to a tech bubble. President George W. Bush turned that surplus into a mammoth tax cut for the wealthy, and within just a few years, Biden was again calling for cuts to Social Security to deal with the deficit.
“The American people know we have to fix Social Security,” Biden said in 2007. “They know we’re going to have to make some tough decisions.”
In his 2007 interview with Russert as a presidential candidate, the “Meet the Press” host asked, “Senator, we have a deficit. We have Social Security and Medicare looming. The number of people on Social Security and Medicare is now 40 million people. It’s going to be 80 million in 15 years. Would you consider looking at those programs, age of eligibility…”
“Absolutely,” Biden said.
“ … cost of living, put it all on the table.”
“The answer is absolutely,” Biden said, reminding Russert that earlier in his career, he had been part of the small number of senators who had come up with the deal that raised the retirement age, and promised to protect each other from voters outraged at the cuts:
I was one of five people — I was the junior guy in the meeting with Bob Dole and George Mitchell when we put Social Security on the right path for 60 years. I’ll never forget what Bob Dole said. After we reached an agreement about gradually raising the retirement age, etc., he said, ‘Look, here’s the deal, we all put our foot in the boat one at a time.’ And he kicked — he stepped like he was stepping into a boat. ‘And we all make the following deal. If any one of the challengers running against the incumbent Democrat or Republicans attack us on this point, we’ll all stay together.’ That’s the kind of leadership that is needed. Social Security’s not the hard one to solve. Medicare, that is the gorilla in the room, and you’ve got to put all of it on the table.
At Iowa’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in November 2007, weeks from the Iowa caucus, Biden again returned to Social Security. “The American people know we have to fix Social Security,” he said. “They know we can’t grow our way to a solution. They know we’re going to have to make some tough decisions. They’re ready to make those decisions. They’re ready to step up. We have to be ready to straightforwardly tell them what we’re about to do.”
As vice president, Biden was involved in multiple administration attempts to cut Social Security as part of a “grand bargain” with Republicans, all of them blocked by tea party Republicans, who couldn’t agree to any tax increases. In 2014, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said at a conservative event that Biden had privately told him he was supporting of raising the retirement age and means-testing Social Security benefits. “I asked the vice president, don’t we have to raise the age? Wouldn’t means-testing and raising the age solve the problem?” Paul recounted, with Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee on stage, adding that Biden said, “Yes in private, but will not say it in public.” Paul hadn’t been paying close enough attention.
A few years later, at a Brookings Institution event in April 2018, Biden addressed Social Security again. “Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare. Now, we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare,” Biden said, then added in a whisper: “That’s the only way you can find room to pay for it.”
Last week, the Biden campaign told Politifact that Biden was mocking Ryan and being sarcastic. Immediately after his whisper, he went into the kinds of adjustments to Social Security he thought should be made, the same type that Paul said he told him supported privately.
“Now, I don’t know a whole lot of people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent or the top 1 percent who are relying on Social Security when they retire. I don’t know a lot of them,” Biden said, alluding to the need to means-test Social Security. “So we need a pro-growth, progressive tax code that treats workers as job creators, as well, not just investors; that gets rid of unproductive loopholes like stepped-up basis; and it raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay, it still needs adjustments, but can stay; and pay for the things we all acknowledge will grow the country.”
When the program is popular, “adjustment” is a Washington euphemism for cuts. But you can count on Trump to use the more common term.
Ryan Grim is the author of the book We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement.
Update: January 13, 2020, 10:30 a.m.
The story has been updated with a statement from the Biden campaign sent after publication.


theintercept--2020-01-14--Bernie Sanders’s Lonely 2017 Battle to Stop Iran Sanctions and Save the Nuclear Deal

since President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani , leading Democratic presidential candidates have condemned the escalation and sought to differentiate themselves on the issue of foreign policy .
The Suleimani strike brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war , but the incident was preceded by years of Trump ’ s efforts to ratchet up tensions .
He pushed new sanctions to undermine President Barack Obama ’ s Iran nuclear deal — which had dramatically dimmed the likelihood of a confrontation — and , eventually , followed through on a campaign promise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The history of Iran sanctions — both during Trump ’ s administration and Obama ’ s — as well as the maneuvering over the nuclear deal as it came into focus and was eventually signed , offer a rich history of 2020 candidates ’ credentials for dealing with Iran .
Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , who ’ s currently surging in polls across early primary states , has used the foreign policy debate over Iran as an opportunity to highlight his staunch anti-war record , while drawing sharp contrasts between himself and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiastic backer of the disastrous Iraq War .
In the aftermath of the strike that killed Suleimani , Sanders co-introduced a bill to block funding for any military action in Iran .
He also released a video saying that he ’ s “ not sorry ” for his opposition to past U.S. wars , from the Vietnam War when he was a young man to voting against the 2003 invasion of Iraq .
“ If you think the war in Iraq was a disaster , ” he warned in the video , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran would be even worse.
” Another 2020 contender , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, joined Sanders ’ s bill , and every candidate in the Democratic presidential contest issued statements that cast the strike as reckless .
As more facts emerged about the killing , other candidates also began questioning the legal justification for the strike — which Sanders had strongly denounced as an “ assassination ” out of the gate .
The united Democratic response of skepticism and alarm at Trump ’ s Suleimani strike was remarkable for a caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran policy .
Even many of the 2020 contenders have gone back and forth on Iran issues .
Yet Sanders has often led the way against conflict with Iran — frequently as a lonely yet strikingly consistent voice in the early years of the Trump administration .
As Trump has been pushing aggressive policies toward Iran since entering office , establishment Democrats in Congress helped pave the way through their consistent support for sanctions on the country .
In 2017 , new sanctions spearheaded by the Trump administration began making their way through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from congress on the January 2020 debate stage who served during this period , Sanders was the only one in either the Senate or House to defend the nuclear deal by consistently voting against the new measures .
In contrast , other candidates in this cycle , like Sens .
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Michael Bennet of Colorado , joined Republicans to co-sponsor the new sanctions despite Iranian leadership ’ s repeated warnings that expanding sanctions would constitute a violation of the deal .
( New Jersey ’ s Sen. Cory Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential race on Monday morning , co-sponsored the legislation as well . )
Sanders ’ s dovish positioning became clear well before the final vote on the bill .
Shortly before an early vote to move the bill forward in the Senate , a terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament killed 12 people and left more than 40 injured .
Sanders called for delaying the vote to debate the measure on account of the attack .
“ On a day when Iran has been attacked by ISIS , by terrorism , now is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation calling for sanctions against Iran , ” he said on the Senate floor .
“ Let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today , the people of Iran suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital , Tehran.
” Yet all but five of the Senate ’ s Democrats — including current 2020 rivals Klobuchar , Bennet , and Warren — bucked Sanders and voted to move debate forward .
The Vermont senator ended up being the only current Democratic presidential hopeful to vote against moving forward .
The Only No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Iran deal also provides ample history to examine candidates ’ records .
Biden , for his part , played a critical role as vice president in persuading congressional Democrats to support the deal .
The Obama White House tapped him to lead the lobbying effort on the Hill , to make sure the votes were there to prevent Congress from blocking the deal .
Jeffrey Prescott , a former deputy national security adviser to Biden , co-authored an op-ed as the 2017 sanctions gained momentum saying that they gave “ Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And another Obama administration veteran , former Secretary of State John Kerry , who negotiated the nuclear deal , came out publicly calling the new sanctions “ dangerous.
” Yet Biden himself was nowhere to be found .
When a group of bipartisan senators reached a deal to add Russia sanctions to a bill sanctioning Iran , Sanders did join Warren , Klobuchar , and Bennet in voting for the amendment , though he would ultimately vote against the passage of the bundled sanctions .
While urging the Senate to add the sanctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying that senators “ must protect our own citizens and our allies by enacting strong legislation to ensure that Iran does not cheat on its international commitment.
” When it came down to a vote on the 2017 bill in the full Senate , Sanders would be the only current 2020 contender to vote against it .
The Senate passed the new sanctions on Iran nearly unanimously , on a 98-2 vote , with Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , joining Sanders , while Warren , Klobuchar , and Bennet voted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heat from a Democratic-aligned group for opposing the bill because it also contained the Russia sanctions , though his statements at the time were clear that his vote was over the danger posed to the Iran deal .
“ I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past , and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table , ” Sanders said in a statement .
“ But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2015 .
That is not a risk worth taking , particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies.
” Because the House and Senate had different language in their bills , a unified , negotiated version of the sanctions package came back before the Senate a month later ; Sanders and Paul were again the only ones to vote against the final sanctions package against Iran , Russia , and North Korea , known as the Countering America ’ s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard all voted in support of the sanctions passage .
Sanders cited concerns over Trump ’ s refusal to recertify Iran ’ s compliance with the nuclear deal , adding that the “ new sanctions on Iran at this time take us in a dangerous direction.
” Iranian officials were furious over the new sanctions , which Trump signed into law , and filed a complaint accusing the U.S. of violating the Iran deal .
The Iranian government also defiantly accelerated its ballistic missile program and fast-tracked funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military branch whose elite force Suleimani commanded until his death .

In the days since President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, leading Democratic presidential candidates have condemned the escalation and sought to differentiate themselves on the issue of foreign policy.
The Suleimani strike brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war, but the incident was preceded by years of Trump’s efforts to ratchet up tensions. He pushed new sanctions to undermine President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal — which had dramatically dimmed the likelihood of a confrontation — and, eventually, followed through on a campaign promise to back out of it entirely.
The history of Iran sanctions — both during Trump’s administration and Obama’s — as well as the maneuvering over the nuclear deal as it came into focus and was eventually signed, offer a rich history of 2020 candidates’ credentials for dealing with Iran.
Sanders has often led the way against conflict with Iran — frequently as a lonely yet strikingly consistent voice in the early years of the Trump administration.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who’s currently surging in polls across early primary states, has used the foreign policy debate over Iran as an opportunity to highlight his staunch anti-war record, while drawing sharp contrasts between himself and former Vice President Joe Biden, an enthusiastic backer of the disastrous Iraq War.
In the aftermath of the strike that killed Suleimani, Sanders co-introduced a bill to block funding for any military action in Iran. He also released a video saying that he’s “not sorry” for his opposition to past U.S. wars, from the Vietnam War when he was a young man to voting against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “If you think the war in Iraq was a disaster,” he warned in the video, “my guess is that the war in Iran would be even worse.”
Another 2020 contender, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., joined Sanders’s bill, and every candidate in the Democratic presidential contest issued statements that cast the strike as reckless. As more facts emerged about the killing, other candidates also began questioning the legal justification for the strike — which Sanders had strongly denounced as an “assassination” out of the gate.
The united Democratic response of skepticism and alarm at Trump’s Suleimani strike was remarkable for a caucus that has so frequently been fractured over Iran policy. Even many of the 2020 contenders have gone back and forth on Iran issues. Yet Sanders has often led the way against conflict with Iran — frequently as a lonely yet strikingly consistent voice in the early years of the Trump administration.
Fight Over 2017 Iran Sanctions
As Trump has been pushing aggressive policies toward Iran since entering office, establishment Democrats in Congress helped pave the way through their consistent support for sanctions on the country.
In 2017, new sanctions spearheaded by the Trump administration began making their way through Congress. Out of all the candidates from congress on the January 2020 debate stage who served during this period, Sanders was the only one in either the Senate or House to defend the nuclear deal by consistently voting against the new measures. In contrast, other candidates in this cycle, like Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Michael Bennet of Colorado, joined Republicans to co-sponsor the new sanctions despite Iranian leadership’s repeated warnings that expanding sanctions would constitute a violation of the deal. (New Jersey’s Sen. Cory Booker, who officially dropped out of the presidential race on Monday morning, co-sponsored the legislation as well.)
Sanders’s dovish positioning became clear well before the final vote on the bill. Shortly before an early vote to move the bill forward in the Senate, a terrorist attack on the Iranian parliament killed 12 people and left more than 40 injured. Sanders called for delaying the vote to debate the measure on account of the attack. “On a day when Iran has been attacked by ISIS, by terrorism, now is not the time to go forward with legislation calling for sanctions against Iran,” he said on the Senate floor. “Let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today, the people of Iran suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital, Tehran.”
Yet all but five of the Senate’s Democrats — including current 2020 rivals Klobuchar, Bennet, and Warren — bucked Sanders and voted to move debate forward. The Vermont senator ended up being the only current Democratic presidential hopeful to vote against moving forward.
The Only No Vote in the Caucus
The original codification of the Iran deal also provides ample history to examine candidates’ records. Biden, for his part, played a critical role as vice president in persuading congressional Democrats to support the deal. The Obama White House tapped him to lead the lobbying effort on the Hill, to make sure the votes were there to prevent Congress from blocking the deal. Jeffrey Prescott, a former deputy national security adviser to Biden, co-authored an op-ed as the 2017 sanctions gained momentum saying that they gave “Iran an excuse to undermine the deal.” And another Obama administration veteran, former Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal, came out publicly calling the new sanctions “dangerous.” Yet Biden himself was nowhere to be found.
When it came down to a vote on the 2017 bill in the full Senate, Sanders would be the only current 2020 contender to vote against it.
When a group of bipartisan senators reached a deal to add Russia sanctions to a bill sanctioning Iran, Sanders did join Warren, Klobuchar, and Bennet in voting for the amendment, though he would ultimately vote against the passage of the bundled sanctions. While urging the Senate to add the sanctions on Russia, Klobuchar singled out Iran, saying that senators “must protect our own citizens and our allies by enacting strong legislation to ensure that Iran does not cheat on its international commitment.”
When it came down to a vote on the 2017 bill in the full Senate, Sanders would be the only current 2020 contender to vote against it. The Senate passed the new sanctions on Iran nearly unanimously, on a 98-2 vote, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., joining Sanders, while Warren, Klobuchar, and Bennet voted for the package.
Sanders would later take heat from a Democratic-aligned group for opposing the bill because it also contained the Russia sanctions, though his statements at the time were clear that his vote was over the danger posed to the Iran deal. “I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table,” Sanders said in a statement. “But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies.”
Because the House and Senate had different language in their bills, a unified, negotiated version of the sanctions package came back before the Senate a month later; Sanders and Paul were again the only ones to vote against the final sanctions package against Iran, Russia, and North Korea, known as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017. Warren, Klobuchar, Bennet, and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard all voted in support of the sanctions passage. Sanders cited concerns over Trump’s refusal to recertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, adding that the “new sanctions on Iran at this time take us in a dangerous direction.”
Iranian officials were furious over the new sanctions, which Trump signed into law, and filed a complaint accusing the U.S. of violating the Iran deal. The Iranian government also defiantly accelerated its ballistic missile program and fast-tracked funding for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military branch whose elite force Suleimani commanded until his death.


theintercept--2020-01-14--Don’t Take the Bait, Progressive Leaders Warn, After Sanders-Warren Spat Overtakes the News Cycle

So much for unity .
Just a week after progressive leaders called for further cooperation between the presidential campaigns of Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , a series of media leaks has led to an escalation of hostilities between the candidates and their supporters .
For some diehards , the weekend fireworks were vindication of their belief that unity was always a pipe dream ; in an election , they say , there can only be one winner , and that zero-sum calculus necessarily leads to conflict .
“ Perhaps this new level of hostility between the campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Nathan Robinson , editor of Current Affairs and a vociferous Sanders backer , who last week argued for harsher criticism of Warren .
“ But it shouldn ’ t be .
We need to be critical and blunt .
There is every reason to be hostile toward a candidate who has just tried to destroy your campaign with a damaging allegation.
” Several progressive leaders and groups — some who ’ ve endorsed Warren , some who back Sanders , and some who ’ ve yet to endorse either candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Intercept , they called for a truce , insisting that a slugfest between Warren and Sanders , less than a month before the Iowa caucuses , only helps the corporate wing of the Democratic Party .
Leaders from MoveOn , the Working Families Party , Justice Democrats , Democracy for America , the Center for Popular Democracy Action , Sunrise Movement , and Indivisible all called on the two candidates to cease attacking each other and focus on the issues .
And the Warren campaign today told BuzzFeed it wants to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders campaign responded to The Intercept ’ s request for comment .
“ These new hostilities have been needled and fostered by people who want to maintain control in this current system .
It ’ s the age-old ruling-class strategy of divide and conquer , ” said labor leader Sara Nelson , president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA .
“ The only way the people win is through solidarity .
So stop beating up on each other , figure out how to find common ground , and get back to talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , the dignity of all work , and the existential threat of climate crisis.
” The rising conflict sets up a primetime showdown between Sanders and Warren at CNN ’ s debate in Des Moines , Iowa , on Tuesday night .
“ These campaigns need to understand that spats like this will diminish aggregate support for progressives , ” said David Segal , a progressive strategist and former Rhode Island state representative who has advocated strategies to unify progressives .
“ Last week ’ s Des Moines Register poll suggested progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa caucus , ” he added .
“ It ’ s hard to imagine something more likely to undermine that outcome — and hand it to [ Joe ] Biden or [ Pete ] Buttigieg — than a three-weeklong throwdown between Sanders and Warren .
They need to simmer down and provide a clear display of solidarity on the debate stage tomorrow.
” Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich put the same point more colorfully : “ If progressive Democrats don ’ t hang together , corporate Democrats will hang them separately.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fray when a voter outreach script , obtained by Politico , appeared to encourage Sanders volunteers to say that Warren appealed only to “ highly-educated , more affluent people ” and that she was “ bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.
” Warren responded by expressing disappointment that Sanders was “ sending his volunteers out to trash [ her ] , ” while Sanders denied that he had approved the script , blaming it on one of hundreds of employees who work on his campaign .
“ Elizabeth and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate the issues .
Nobody is gon na trash Elizabeth , ” he said .
The fires were stoked again on Monday , when CNN reported that in December 2018 , during a private meeting between the two candidates , Sanders had said he didn ’ t think a woman could beat Donald Trump .
Sanders called the story “ ludicrous ” and lamented that “ staff who weren ’ t in the room are lying about what happened.
” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir called on Warren to clear the air .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed the story but downplayed its importance .
“ Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate .
I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed , ” Warren said .
“ I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common that our differences on punditry.
” Warren said she had “ no doubt ” the two candidates would “ continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump.
” On Tuesday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told key supporters in a group chat , “ Re : where we go from here — our goal is de-escalation and focusing on our shared goals.
” But the damage was done .
By Monday night , headlines like “ Warren and Sanders ’ Famous Friendship Finally Ices Over ” were ricocheting across social media — and diehard supporters of both candidates were openly railing against each other .
Sanders supporters blamed the Warren camp for leaking details of the conversation to paint him as a sexist — a charge with uneasy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Sanders and his fans were often accused of misogyny .
( The precise provenance of the details is still unknown ; Warren told The Intercept ’ s Ryan Grim that it was not intentional . )
Many took Warren ’ s statement to mean that Sanders had lied .
Meanwhile , Warren ’ s fans , who have often complained — with good reason — about the media ’ s gendered treatment of their candidate , saw another conversation about sexism in which the man ( Sanders ) was being figured as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think this is what Warren wanted to be talking about yesterday , ” Joe Dinkin , campaigns director of the Working Families Party , said .
“ Friends don ’ t always agree , but we believe that Warren and Sanders have much more that unites them .
And their supporters should turn their fire on the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and not on each other .
A battle between Bernie and Warren supporters only helps Biden and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.
” WFP has endorsed Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falling for the media ’ s longheld desire for a brawl between the two progressive candidates , ” said Waleed Shahid , spokesperson for Justice Democrats , an organization that was founded by former 2016 Sanders staffers , but has not endorsed in 2020 , “ when they should be focused on taking on the two corporate-friendly candidates in the race and earning the trust of voters.
” Shahid pointed out that nothing that has happened so far approaches the negativity of the 2008 primary contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can put it out quickly or you can fan the flames , ” said Charles Chamberlain of Democracy for America , who has been advocating a unity approach for weeks now .
“ We ’ re at a moment right now where the candidates understand how important it is to put the fire out .
We ’ re calling on the campaigns to make sure they do that at the debate on Tuesday night .
Make it clear they stand together against the corporate wing of the party.
” ( Democracy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dean in 2004 and endorsed Sanders in 2016 , told The Intercept last week that it will decline to endorse before the first set of primaries . )
Indivisible , a major player in progressive politics founded by former Hill staffers in the wake of Trump ’ s victory , also called for unity .
“ We know that Senator Warren and Senator Sanders ’ s respect for each other goes deep , ” said Leah Greenberg , Indivisible ’ s co-executive director .
“ We ’ ve spent a long time as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false electability arguments and will continue to do so , ” said Greenberg , alluding to the notion that a woman couldn ’ t defeat Trump .
“ But right now , we think the most important fight we need to have is against the forces fighting for the status quo , instead of for the big transformational change we need to make our democracy work for all people.
” When debate moderators on Tuesday inevitably try to stoke a conflict between Warren and Sanders , Ana Maria Archila , executive director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cautioned them not to “ take the bait.
” ( CPD Action has endorsed Sanders . )
“ I believe that they see each other , fundamentally , as allies , ” Archila said .
“ They should be able to display that kind of politics on the stage .
They have so far.
” “ The fact is the left has a long history of eating its own and destroying itself , ” Archila said .
MoveOn — one the most influential progressive groups in America — has yet to endorse in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive champions in the presidential race who MoveOn members are excited about and support , ” said Rahna Epting , executive director of MoveOn Political Action .
“ The way we advance a progressive future starts by defeating Donald Trump .
Trump benefits most when we are divided.
” ( On Monday , Trump tweeted , “ Bernie Sander ’ s volunteers are trashing Elizabeth ‘ Pocahontus ’ Warren… Elizabeth is very angry at Bernie .
Do I see a feud brewing ?
” ) “ Infighting between Sanders and Warren only benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP , and the moderate wing of the Democratic Party , ” said Zina Precht-Rodriguez , political communications manager at Sunrise Movement , a youth climate justice organization that endorsed Sanders last week .
“ In our shared commitment to a Green New Deal , Medicare for All , and a government and society that works for the many , not the few , supporters of Sanders and Warren have much more in common than we have apart .
Going into tonight , we hope that Senator Sanders and Warren and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on the issues that matter to Americans.
” Nelson , a rising icon in organized labor , said brawling between Warren and Sanders camps will turn off new voters , which a progressive nominee will need to defeat the centrists .
“ Do the math , ” she said .
“ We need a progressive supermajority to win this ; they ’ ve shown that if it ’ s close , they ’ ll steal it.
” Most voters , Nelson said , are not paying attention to every little detail of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people out there who don ’ t have the luxury of caring at all about this conversation because they ’ re just fighting to survive.
” “ I think it ’ s great that this [ conflict ] can be someone ’ s whole world right now , because there are two reasons that ’ s possible .
Either , you ’ re not in the fight of your life in this election , and so , good for you that you ’ re living comfy , ” said Nelson .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head in the sand about what we have to take on and getting distracted .
Both of those things are human nature .
But wake up !
” Nelson did not downplay the seriousness of sexism in our society and our electoral system , but nonetheless encouraged supporters of both candidates to have perspective .
“ Both Warren and Sanders are firmly on record identifying sexism as a major problem and block in our democracy , ” Nelson said , “ So let ’ s talk about the issue , not about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue to divide us.
” Nelson compared progressives ’ challenge in this election to her experience preparing for a strike vote .
“ There ’ s always a good 10 percent who are ready to burn everything to the ground at any given moment , and those people will express their frustration that we aren ’ t moving fast enough to burn everything to the ground .
And I have to say to them , ‘ I don ’ t care where you ’ re at now , because when I bring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re still going to be with me.
’ ” “ And so , we have to be focused on the 80 percent .
And , for them , this is a turnoff .
The majority of people are conflict averse .
A fight among those who have common values is going to prevent people from hearing our ideas , from wanting to be part of our movement .
”

So much for unity. Just a week after progressive leaders called for further cooperation between the presidential campaigns of Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, a series of media leaks has led to an escalation of hostilities between the candidates and their supporters. For some diehards, the weekend fireworks were vindication of their belief that unity was always a pipe dream; in an election, they say, there can only be one winner, and that zero-sum calculus necessarily leads to conflict. “Perhaps this new level of hostility between the campaigns can be put back in the bag,” said Nathan Robinson, editor of Current Affairs and a vociferous Sanders backer, who last week argued for harsher criticism of Warren. “But it shouldn’t be. We need to be critical and blunt. There is every reason to be hostile toward a candidate who has just tried to destroy your campaign with a damaging allegation.”
Several progressive leaders and groups — some who’ve endorsed Warren, some who back Sanders, and some who’ve yet to endorse either candidate — strongly disagreed. In conversations with The Intercept, they called for a truce, insisting that a slugfest between Warren and Sanders, less than a month before the Iowa caucuses, only helps the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. Leaders from MoveOn, the Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, Democracy for America, the Center for Popular Democracy Action, Sunrise Movement, and Indivisible all called on the two candidates to cease attacking each other and focus on the issues. And the Warren campaign today told BuzzFeed it wants to “de-escalate.” Neither the Warren nor the Sanders campaign responded to The Intercept’s request for comment.
“These new hostilities have been needled and fostered by people who want to maintain control in this current system. It’s the age-old ruling-class strategy of divide and conquer,” said labor leader Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA. “The only way the people win is through solidarity. So stop beating up on each other, figure out how to find common ground, and get back to talking about the issues that matter, like health care, the dignity of all work, and the existential threat of climate crisis.”
The rising conflict sets up a primetime showdown between Sanders and Warren at CNN’s debate in Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday night. “These campaigns need to understand that spats like this will diminish aggregate support for progressives,” said David Segal, a progressive strategist and former Rhode Island state representative who has advocated strategies to unify progressives.
“Last week’s Des Moines Register poll suggested progressives might come in first and second in the Iowa caucus,” he added. “It’s hard to imagine something more likely to undermine that outcome — and hand it to [Joe] Biden or [Pete] Buttigieg — than a three-weeklong throwdown between Sanders and Warren. They need to simmer down and provide a clear display of solidarity on the debate stage tomorrow.”
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich put the same point more colorfully: “If progressive Democrats don’t hang together, corporate Democrats will hang them separately.”
Over the weekend, the de facto nonaggression pact began to fray when a voter outreach script, obtained by Politico, appeared to encourage Sanders volunteers to say that Warren appealed only to “highly-educated, more affluent people” and that she was “bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” Warren responded by expressing disappointment that Sanders was “sending his volunteers out to trash [her],” while Sanders denied that he had approved the script, blaming it on one of hundreds of employees who work on his campaign. “Elizabeth and I continue to work together. We will debate the issues. Nobody is gonna trash Elizabeth,” he said.
The fires were stoked again on Monday, when CNN reported that in December 2018, during a private meeting between the two candidates, Sanders had said he didn’t think a woman could beat Donald Trump. Sanders called the story “ludicrous” and lamented that “staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened.” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir called on Warren to clear the air. After several hours without comment, Warren confirmed the story but downplayed its importance. “Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” Warren said. “I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common that our differences on punditry.” Warren said she had “no doubt” the two candidates would “continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump.” On Tuesday, the BuzzFeed story notes, Warren campaign officials told key supporters in a group chat, “Re: where we go from here — our goal is de-escalation and focusing on our shared goals.”
But the damage was done. By Monday night, headlines like “Warren and Sanders’ Famous Friendship Finally Ices Over” were ricocheting across social media — and diehard supporters of both candidates were openly railing against each other. Sanders supporters blamed the Warren camp for leaking details of the conversation to paint him as a sexist — a charge with uneasy resonances of the 2016 primary, during which Sanders and his fans were often accused of misogyny. (The precise provenance of the details is still unknown; Warren told The Intercept’s Ryan Grim that it was not intentional.) Many took Warren’s statement to mean that Sanders had lied. Meanwhile, Warren’s fans, who have often complained — with good reason — about the media’s gendered treatment of their candidate, saw another conversation about sexism in which the man (Sanders) was being figured as the victim.
“I don’t think this is what Warren wanted to be talking about yesterday,” Joe Dinkin, campaigns director of the Working Families Party, said. “Friends don’t always agree, but we believe that Warren and Sanders have much more that unites them. And their supporters should turn their fire on the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and not on each other. A battle between Bernie and Warren supporters only helps Biden and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.” WFP has endorsed Warren.
“I think the campaigns are falling for the media’s longheld desire for a brawl between the two progressive candidates,” said Waleed Shahid, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, an organization that was founded by former 2016 Sanders staffers, but has not endorsed in 2020, “when they should be focused on taking on the two corporate-friendly candidates in the race and earning the trust of voters.” Shahid pointed out that nothing that has happened so far approaches the negativity of the 2008 primary contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
“The left has a long history of eating its own and destroying itself.”
“When a fire breaks out, you can put it out quickly or you can fan the flames,” said Charles Chamberlain of Democracy for America, who has been advocating a unity approach for weeks now. “We’re at a moment right now where the candidates understand how important it is to put the fire out. We’re calling on the campaigns to make sure they do that at the debate on Tuesday night. Make it clear they stand together against the corporate wing of the party.” (Democracy for America, which was founded by Howard Dean in 2004 and endorsed Sanders in 2016, told The Intercept last week that it will decline to endorse before the first set of primaries.)
Indivisible, a major player in progressive politics founded by former Hill staffers in the wake of Trump’s victory, also called for unity. “We know that Senator Warren and Senator Sanders’s respect for each other goes deep,” said Leah Greenberg, Indivisible’s co-executive director.
“We’ve spent a long time as an organization fighting against and calling out false electability arguments and will continue to do so,” said Greenberg, alluding to the notion that a woman couldn’t defeat Trump. “But right now, we think the most important fight we need to have is against the forces fighting for the status quo, instead of for the big transformational change we need to make our democracy work for all people.”
When debate moderators on Tuesday inevitably try to stoke a conflict between Warren and Sanders, Ana Maria Archila, executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy Action, cautioned them not to “take the bait.” (CPD Action has endorsed Sanders.) “I believe that they see each other, fundamentally, as allies,” Archila said. “They should be able to display that kind of politics on the stage. They have so far.”
“The fact is the left has a long history of eating its own and destroying itself,” Archila said.
MoveOn — one of the most influential progressive groups in America — has yet to endorse in the primary. “There are multiple progressive champions in the presidential race who MoveOn members are excited about and support,” said Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn Political Action. “The way we advance a progressive future starts by defeating Donald Trump. Trump benefits most when we are divided.” (On Monday, Trump tweeted, “Bernie Sander’s volunteers are trashing Elizabeth ‘Pocahontus’ Warren… Elizabeth is very angry at Bernie. Do I see a feud brewing?”)
“Infighting between Sanders and Warren only benefits big oil, fossil fuel billionaires, the GOP, and the moderate wing of the Democratic Party,” said Zina Precht-Rodriguez, political communications manager at Sunrise Movement, a youth climate justice organization that endorsed Sanders last week. “In our shared commitment to a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and a government and society that works for the many, not the few, supporters of Sanders and Warren have much more in common than we have apart. Going into tonight, we hope that Senator Sanders and Warren and their campaigns are smart and strategic enough to focus on the issues that matter to Americans.”
“Infighting between Sanders and Warren only benefits big oil, fossil fuel billionaires, the GOP, and the moderate wing of the Democratic Party.”
Nelson, a rising icon in organized labor, said brawling between Warren and Sanders camps will turn off new voters, which a progressive nominee will need to defeat the centrists. “Do the math,” she said. “We need a progressive supermajority to win this; they’ve shown that if it’s close, they’ll steal it.”
Most voters, Nelson said, are not paying attention to every little detail of this spat. “There are millions of people out there who don’t have the luxury of caring at all about this conversation because they’re just fighting to survive.”
“I think it’s great that this [conflict] can be someone’s whole world right now, because there are two reasons that’s possible. Either, you’re not in the fight of your life in this election, and so, good for you that you’re living comfy,” said Nelson. “Or else you’re burying your head in the sand about what we have to take on and getting distracted. Both of those things are human nature. But wake up!”
Nelson did not downplay the seriousness of sexism in our society and our electoral system, but nonetheless encouraged supporters of both candidates to have perspective. “Both Warren and Sanders are firmly on record identifying sexism as a major problem and block in our democracy,” Nelson said, “So let’s talk about the issue, not about how we’re going to allow the issue to divide us.”
Nelson compared progressives’ challenge in this election to her experience preparing for a strike vote. “There’s always a good 10 percent who are ready to burn everything to the ground at any given moment, and those people will express their frustration that we aren’t moving fast enough to burn everything to the ground. And I have to say to them, ‘I don’t care where you’re at now, because when I bring the other 80 percent to where you are, you’re still going to be with me.’”
“And so, we have to be focused on the 80 percent. And, for them, this is a turnoff. The majority of people are conflict averse. A fight among those who have common values is going to prevent people from hearing our ideas, from wanting to be part of our movement.”


theintercept--2020-01-14--A “Jeopardy!” Contestant Asked, “What Is Palestine?” The Game Show Gave the Wrong Answer.

The producers of the game show “ Jeopardy ” broadcast a rare , uncorrected error on Friday , when a contestant mistakenly said that the Church of the Nativity , the site in Bethlehem believed by Christians to be the birthplace of Jesus , was in Israel , but was awarded $ 200 for what millions of viewers were told was the right answer .
Another contestant , Katie Needle , looked puzzled as the show then went to a commercial break .
That ’ s because , moments earlier , Needle had offered the correct answer , “ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response in the form of a question in keeping with the show ’ s rules — only to be told that she was wrong , and had $ 200 deducted from her score .
Compounding the confusion , when the show returned from the break , Needle ’ s score had been adjusted to return the $ 200 she had been penalized for a wrong answer , but the money had not been taken away from the contestant who said the church was in Israel , Jack McGuire .
The show ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain the change in scores or offer an on-air correction , as he had earlier in the show when the judges decided after the fact that another answer had mistakenly been judged correct .
To some viewers at home , that looked like an attempt at a Solomonic compromise by show ’ s judges — a panel overseen by Jeopardy ’ s executive producer , Harry Friedman , and head writer , Billy Wisse — who perhaps decided that it would be uncomfortable to explain the actual status of Bethlehem , a Palestinian-administered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But by failing to adjust McGuire ’ s score , the producers seemed to put a seal of approval on what even ultranationalist Israelis , who like to refer to the occupied territories as “ disputed , ” would consider an error .
Bethlehem is not even claimed by Israel ; it is literally walled off from Israel by a massive concrete barrier , topped with watchtowers , constructed by the Israeli military .
That wall was prominently featured in news reports on ABC , the network that broadcasts “ Jeopardy !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaned against it in prayer before celebrating mass in Bethlehem ’ s Manger Square .
When Ariel Sharon , an ultranationalist Israeli prime minister , argued in 2003 that a political solution to the conflict with the Palestinians was necessary because “ the idea that we can continue holding under occupation — and it is occupation , you might not like this word , but it ’ s really an occupation — to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is , in my opinion , a very bad thing for us and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative was to put Israeli troops permanently in Palestinian cities like Jenin , Nablus , Ramallah and Bethlehem .
Although the producers of “ Jeopardy !
” initially refused to comment , a witness who was in the studio for the taping last fall told The Intercept that they appeared to be aware that they had made a mistake almost immediately .
According to the source , who asked not to be identified for fear of violating a promise to keep the results of the prerecorded contest secret , audience members sensed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s producers and writers clustered around Trebek during an extended pause in the taping at that stage .
After intense discussions , the host , whose mic remained on , could be heard saying in a low voice to the producers , “ You ’ re going to have to explain it to them , ” apparently instructing the staff to talk to the contestants .
When the show ’ s staff did then address the contestants , a decision seemed to have been made to eliminate the question and both answers from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reset to what they were before the question , and a new question was recorded in its place .
Because McGuire answered that question correctly , a new $ 200 was added to his score .
After nearly three days of rampant speculation , the producers of “ Jeopardy !
” released an online correction on Monday afternoon , explaining that after the question about the church in Bethlehem was asked , they “ became aware that the clue was flawed as written and that determining an acceptable response would be problematic.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substitute question was not used instead of the question about Bethlehem when the episode , which was recorded about three months ago , was broadcast on Friday .
In an interview with The A.V .
Club in 2015 , the show ’ s head writer , Billy Wisse , explained that , during the recording of episodes , he sits at the foot of the stage with fellow writers and producers who act as the judges , “ Listening , first and foremost , for responses that they give that we didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct.
” The scripts for the games , Wisse added , list the answers Trebek is instructed to accept , as well as a “ do not accept ” list , “ if there ’ s something that seems like a plausible response that we ’ ve thought of but we know is not right .
But sometimes things come out of the blue and we just say , ‘ Well , we never thought of that.
’ ” A spokeswoman for the show did not reply to a request to explain why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taping the episode that it would have been “ problematic ” to simply accept Needle ’ s answer that the church is in Palestine .
According to the United Nations Educational , Scientific and Cultural Organization , which admitted Palestine as a member state in 2011 , and added the Church of the Nativity to its list of World Heritage sites the following year , the site is in Palestine .
But Israel and the United States lobbied against the church ’ s listing , and remain bitterly opposed Palestine ’ s UNESCO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Palestinian Authority ’ s campaign to win international recognition of Palestinian statehood without first agreeing to give Israel a say on where its borders should be .
In 2017 , citing what it called “ anti-Israel bias , ” the Trump administration announced that it was withdrawing from UNESCO , and Israel ’ s prime minister , Benjamin Netanyahu , said his nation would follow suit , “ because UNESCO has become a theater of the absurd and instead of preserving history , distorts it.
” Although Palestine has now been recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world ’ s nations , that list does not yet include the United States or Israel , which might have influenced the “ Jeopardy !
” producers who made the decision that their writers had come up with a clue with no “ acceptable response.
” At the start of the game , the contestants were told that to answer clues in the category “ Where ’ s That Church ?
” they would be required “ to give us the present country.
” Israel plays no role in managing the church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does , through an advisory committee that works in conjunction with three Christian bodies that have been recognized as its protectors for centuries .
It ’ s under the Status Quo of the Holy Places , an international agreement that the Church of the Nativity and the holy sites in Jerusalem should be managed by mutual agreement of religious orders , without external political interference .
While it remains unclear why the show ’ s judges did not consider Palestine an acceptable answer in this case , it is interesting that they apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church of the Nativity to guess that it was in Israel .
Wisse , who now shares the title of co-head writer with Michele Loud , told the A.V .
Club that making sure the questions are not too obscure for contestants and the audience is a constant challenge .
“ A lot of it is based on your age and we have to struggle with that because there ’ s not a lot of turnover on our staff , ” Wisse added .
“ We continue to get older while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be aware that things that happened in the Reagan administration are not second nature to people who were born during the Reagan administration.
” “ We want the contestants to answer the clues correctly , ” Loud said in a recent behind-the-scenes video that showed the judges in the studio .
“ We ’ re really working hard to make sure that the people at home and the people playing the game in the studio can answer the questions.
” Wisse — who presumably vetted the question and , like whoever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in Israel — was born in 1962 into a staunchly pro-Israel family .
His parents moved the family to Israel when he was nine , before they decided a year later not to settle there permanently .
He could also have inherited a skepticism toward the legitimacy of Palestinian claims to statehood from his mother , Ruth Wisse , a neoconservative writer known for her aggressive defense of Israel and her harsh criticism of Palestinians and Israelis who advocate withdrawal from the occupied territories .
( “ The obvious key to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the disputed territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River , of Palestinian Arabs , people who breed and bleed and advertise their misery , ” she wrote in a notorious essay for the journal “ Commentary ” in 1988 . )
While the “ Jeopardy !
” writer ’ s own politics could well differ from those of his mother , a spokesperson for the show declined to say if the co-head writer was the same Billy Wisse who wrote a letter to the editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to complain that the paper ’ s reporting on stalled Middle East peace talks was unfair to Israel and biased in favor of Palestinians .
If the “ Jeopardy !
” writing staff made this error because it unthinkingly reflects the default , pro-Israel consensus of older Americans — with a frame of reference formed , as Wisse suggested , during the Reagan era — they might well have been surprised to hear a younger contestant like Needle , who is a Bernie Sanders supporter from Brooklyn , correctly state that Bethlehem is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they confused the Church of the Nativity with one of the Christian holy sites in East Jerusalem , an area of the West Bank that has also been occupied by Israel since 1967 , but which Israel annexed — a move that violated international law , but was recently endorsed by the Trump administration . )
On Twitter , where Needle has shared content from the Democratic Socialists of America and defended Rep. Ilhan Omar , she was widely praised by Palestinians and their supporters for treating the existence of Palestine as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article was originally published , Glenn Fleishman , a two-time Jeopardy champion and a veteran technology reporter , weighed in on Twitter to say that the program “ made a mistake in the moment , messed it rectifying it in editing , did Palestinians and viewers a disservice in not explaining it , and should state clearly what happened and apologize.
” As Fleishman suggested , since the false information , that Bethlehem is in Israel , was broadcast to about 10 million Americans , an on-air correction , preferably one stating clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Palestine , would seem more appropriate than the confused online-only statement belatedly issued by the show on Monday .

The producers of the game show “Jeopardy” broadcast a rare, uncorrected error on Friday, when a contestant mistakenly said that the Church of the Nativity, the site in Bethlehem believed by Christians to be the birthplace of Jesus, was in Israel, but was awarded $200 for what millions of viewers were told was the right answer.
Another contestant, Katie Needle, looked puzzled as the show then went to a commercial break. That’s because, moments earlier, Needle had offered the correct answer, “What is Palestine?” — putting her response in the form of a question in keeping with the show’s rules — only to be told that she was wrong, and had $200 deducted from her score.
https://twitter.com/chriswhitman11/status/1215809436717109248
Compounding the confusion, when the show returned from the break, Needle’s score had been adjusted to return the $200 she had been penalized for a wrong answer, but the money had not been taken away from the contestant who said the church was in Israel, Jack McGuire. The show’s host, Alex Trebek, did not explain the change in scores or offer an on-air correction, as he had earlier in the show when the judges decided after the fact that another answer had mistakenly been judged correct.
To some viewers at home, that looked like an attempt at a Solomonic compromise by show’s judges — a panel overseen by Jeopardy’s executive producer, Harry Friedman, and head writer, Billy Wisse — who perhaps decided that it would be uncomfortable to explain the actual status of Bethlehem, a Palestinian-administered city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
But by failing to adjust McGuire’s score, the producers seemed to put a seal of approval on what even ultranationalist Israelis, who like to refer to the occupied territories as “disputed,” would consider an error. Bethlehem is not even claimed by Israel; it is literally walled off from Israel by a massive concrete barrier, topped with watchtowers, constructed by the Israeli military.
That wall was prominently featured in news reports on ABC, the network that broadcasts “Jeopardy!”, in 2014, when Pope Francis leaned against it in prayer before celebrating mass in Bethlehem’s Manger Square.
Photo: Taufiq Khalil/AFP via Getty Images
The unit of Israel’s military that administers the occupation, known as the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories, or COGAT, refers to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria,” but acknowledges that this region is not part of Israel. According to a COGAT primer on the city, Bethlehem is “the most central crossing from Judea and Samaria into Israel,” and its local economy is supported by “goods exported to Israel.”
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
When Ariel Sharon, an ultranationalist Israeli prime minister, argued in 2003 that a political solution to the conflict with the Palestinians was necessary because “the idea that we can continue holding under occupation — and it is occupation, you might not like this word, but it’s really an occupation — to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is, in my opinion, a very bad thing for us and for them,” he specified that the alternative was to put Israeli troops permanently in Palestinian cities like Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem.
Although the producers of “Jeopardy!” initially refused to comment, a witness who was in the studio for the taping last fall told The Intercept that they appeared to be aware that they had made a mistake almost immediately. According to the source, who asked not to be identified for fear of violating a promise to keep the results of the prerecorded contest secret, audience members sensed that something was wrong when the show’s producers and writers clustered around Trebek during an extended pause in the taping at that stage.
After intense discussions, the host, whose mic remained on, could be heard saying in a low voice to the producers, “You’re going to have to explain it to them,” apparently instructing the staff to talk to the contestants. When the show’s staff did then address the contestants, a decision seemed to have been made to eliminate the question and both answers from the show, because the scores were reset to what they were before the question, and a new question was recorded in its place. Because McGuire answered that question correctly, a new $200 was added to his score.
After nearly three days of rampant speculation, the producers of “Jeopardy!” released an online correction on Monday afternoon, explaining that after the question about the church in Bethlehem was asked, they “became aware that the clue was flawed as written and that determining an acceptable response would be problematic.” Because of a production error, the substitute question was not used instead of the question about Bethlehem when the episode, which was recorded about three months ago, was broadcast on Friday.
In an interview with The A.V. Club in 2015, the show’s head writer, Billy Wisse, explained that, during the recording of episodes, he sits at the foot of the stage with fellow writers and producers who act as the judges, “Listening, first and foremost, for responses that they give that we didn’t expect that turn out to be correct.”
The scripts for the games, Wisse added, list the answers Trebek is instructed to accept, as well as a “do not accept” list, “if there’s something that seems like a plausible response that we’ve thought of but we know is not right. But sometimes things come out of the blue and we just say, ‘Well, we never thought of that.’”
A spokeswoman for the show did not reply to a request to explain why the producers decided during the pause in taping the episode that it would have been “problematic” to simply accept Needle’s answer that the church is in Palestine.
According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which admitted Palestine as a member state in 2011, and added the Church of the Nativity to its list of World Heritage sites the following year, the site is in Palestine. But Israel and the United States lobbied against the church’s listing, and remain bitterly opposed Palestine’s UNESCO membership, describing it as part of the Palestinian Authority’s campaign to win international recognition of Palestinian statehood without first agreeing to give Israel a say on where its borders should be.
In 2017, citing what it called “anti-Israel bias,” the Trump administration announced that it was withdrawing from UNESCO, and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said his nation would follow suit, “because UNESCO has become a theater of the absurd and instead of preserving history, distorts it.”
Although Palestine has now been recognized as a state by a majority of the world’s nations, that list does not yet include the United States or Israel, which might have influenced the “Jeopardy!” producers who made the decision that their writers had come up with a clue with no “acceptable response.” At the start of the game, the contestants were told that to answer clues in the category “Where’s That Church?” they would be required “to give us the present country.”
Israel plays no role in managing the church in Bethlehem, but the Palestinian Presidency does, through an advisory committee that works in conjunction with three Christian bodies that have been recognized as its protectors for centuries. It’s under the Status Quo of the Holy Places, an international agreement that the Church of the Nativity and the holy sites in Jerusalem should be managed by mutual agreement of religious orders, without external political interference.
While it remains unclear why the show’s judges did not consider Palestine an acceptable answer in this case, it is interesting that they apparently expected any Americans who had heard of the Church of the Nativity to guess that it was in Israel.
Wisse, who now shares the title of co-head writer with Michele Loud, told the A.V. Club that making sure the questions are not too obscure for contestants and the audience is a constant challenge. “A lot of it is based on your age and we have to struggle with that because there’s not a lot of turnover on our staff,” Wisse added. “We continue to get older while the contestants get younger, and so we have to be aware that things that happened in the Reagan administration are not second nature to people who were born during the Reagan administration.”
“We want the contestants to answer the clues correctly,” Loud said in a recent behind-the-scenes video that showed the judges in the studio. “We’re really working hard to make sure that the people at home and the people playing the game in the studio can answer the questions.”
In a way, what the “Jeopardy!” writers assume most Americans will know about the world might act as a barometer of changing views — in this case, about the legitimacy of Israeli claims to the territories it has occupied since 1967, and what Palestinians see as an attempt to erase their culture and history in that land.
Hello @Jeopardy, I’m a Palestinian-American whose family was ethnically cleansed from Palestine. I used to be a fan of your Program. I am disappointed by your misleading information and erasure of Palestinian identity. — Rani Allan ???? ?????, Esq. (@Rani_Allan) January 11, 2020
Wisse — who presumably vetted the question and, like whoever wrote it, mistakenly thought the church was in Israel — was born in 1962 into a staunchly pro-Israel family. His parents moved the family to Israel when he was nine, before they decided a year later not to settle there permanently.
He could also have inherited a skepticism toward the legitimacy of Palestinian claims to statehood from his mother, Ruth Wisse, a neoconservative writer known for her aggressive defense of Israel and her harsh criticism of Palestinians and Israelis who advocate withdrawal from the occupied territories. (“The obvious key to the success of Arab strategy is the presence, in the disputed territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River, of Palestinian Arabs, people who breed and bleed and advertise their misery,” she wrote in a notorious essay for the journal “Commentary” in 1988.)
While the “Jeopardy!” writer’s own politics could well differ from those of his mother, a spokesperson for the show declined to say if the co-head writer was the same Billy Wisse who wrote a letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times in 2007 to complain that the paper’s reporting on stalled Middle East peace talks was unfair to Israel and biased in favor of Palestinians.
If the “Jeopardy!” writing staff made this error because it unthinkingly reflects the default, pro-Israel consensus of older Americans — with a frame of reference formed, as Wisse suggested, during the Reagan era — they might well have been surprised to hear a younger contestant like Needle, who is a Bernie Sanders supporter from Brooklyn, correctly state that Bethlehem is in Palestine. (Another possibility is that they confused the Church of the Nativity with one of the Christian holy sites in East Jerusalem, an area of the West Bank that has also been occupied by Israel since 1967, but which Israel annexed — a move that violated international law, but was recently endorsed by the Trump administration.)
On Twitter, where Needle has shared content from the Democratic Socialists of America and defended Rep. Ilhan Omar, she was widely praised by Palestinians and their supporters for treating the existence of Palestine as a matter of fact.
@Jeopardy you have lost a lifetime viewer. Completely unacceptable that you deny that the Church of the Nativity is in Bethlehem, Palestine and insist that it is in Israel. Thank you Katie for telling the truth.. your look towards Alex was priceless. — Bassem Nasir (@bassemnasir) January 11, 2020
While she is still barred by “Jeopardy!” from discussing what happened during her run on the show, after Friday’s broadcast, Needle did recommend that followers read her friend’s article in the Journal of Palestine Studies on how the Trump administration’s aid to Palestinian Authority security forces has “tethered Israeli political aims to its remit.”
After Sana Saeed, a producer for Al Jazeera’s AJ+ channel, tweeted her support for the “Jeopardy!” contestant, Needle thanked her, and wrote simply, “Palestine should be free.”
Thanks! Palestine should be free ?? — Katie Needle (@katieee817) January 11, 2020
Update: Tuesday, January 14, 6:31 p.m. ET
After this article was originally published, Glenn Fleishman, a two-time Jeopardy champion and a veteran technology reporter, weighed in on Twitter to say that the program “made a mistake in the moment, messed it rectifying it in editing, did Palestinians and viewers a disservice in not explaining it, and should state clearly what happened and apologize.”
As Fleishman suggested, since the false information, that Bethlehem is in Israel, was broadcast to about 10 million Americans, an on-air correction, preferably one stating clearly that the correct answer to the question is Palestine, would seem more appropriate than the confused online-only statement belatedly issued by the show on Monday.