We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
WSJ Urges Regulators to Approve T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, and cautioned the federal government against any pointless and destructive objection to the deal.  In today's Wall Street Journal, its editorial board encourages the Department of Justice (DOJ) to move forward on the deal:

The Justice Department lost its lawsuit to block AT&T's purchase of Time Warner.  Yet now the antitrust cops are holding up T-Mobile's merger with Sprint even though it could give AT&T more competition in wireless.  What gives?

A year ago, T-Mobile announced plans to acquire Sprint for $26 billion in stock, yet the merger is still stuck in government antitrust purgatory.  The Federal Communications Commission keeps pausing its 180-day shot clock on the merger…[more]

April 22, 2019 • 04:07 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Face It: Biden and Bernie Are Too Old To Be President Print
By Byron York
Wednesday, April 10 2019
There's no doubt both are vigorous men. But having a president pushing 90 would be a new experience in American politics.

Whatever their differences, the two front-runners in the Democratic presidential race, Joe Biden, born Nov. 20, 1942, and Bernie Sanders, born Sept. 8, 1941, share one common trait: They are too old to be president.

Biden, leading the RealClearPolitics average of polls, will be 78 years old on Inauguration Day 2021. Sanders, No. 2 in the field, will be 79. Both would be older upon taking office than Ronald Reagan was when he left office after two terms.

Voters are clearly open to older candidates. President Trump, born June 14, 1946, is the oldest president ever to take office  70 years old on his Inauguration Day, a few months older than Reagan when he took power. And, of course, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, born Oct. 26, 1947, who, had she won, would have been the same age as Reagan  69  upon taking office.

Americans elect a president with the understanding that he or she might serve eight years. If that were the case with a President Sanders, he would be 87 years old on leaving office, and a President Biden would be 86.

There's no doubt both are vigorous men. But having a president pushing 90 would be a new experience in American politics.

According to actuarial tables maintained by the Social Security Administration, the life expectancy of a 70-year-old man is 14.30 years  enough time to serve two terms and move on to physical decline. The life expectancy of a 78-year-old man is 9.33 years -- enough to last two terms and not a lot more. The life expectancy of a 79-year-old man is 8.77 years -- barely enough to make it out of the White House.

Of course, each man might live to 100. None of us knows. But given their age, the issue is more than just whether each candidate might be a voice from the past, or out of touch with today's concerns. The issue is whether they are simply too old to handle the rigors of the presidency.

The Republican candidate, President Trump, will be 74 years old on the next Inauguration Day. What is unknown is whether Democrats will choose a candidate who is even older, or whether they will give voters a generational choice. First, though, the Democratic Party has to go through a generational reckoning of its own.

The party has a host of candidates who are of prime age for the presidency. In third place in the RealClearPolitics average is Kamala Harris, born Oct. 20, 1964, who will be 56 on Inauguration Day. Next is Beto O'Rourke, born Sept. 26, 1972, who will be 48 (just a bit older than Barack Obama was when he took office).

Next is the candidate who would be the oldest in the Democratic race were it not for Sanders and Biden. Elizabeth Warren, born June 22, 1949, will be 71 on Inauguration Day  older than Trump was when he took the oath of office. But given the experience of Reagan and Trump, and the candidacy of Clinton, Warren appears within the accepted range of presidential age.

Continuing down the Democratic field, there is Cory Booker, born April 27, 1969, who will be 51 on Inauguration Day. Then Pete Buttigieg, born Jan. 19, 1982, who will turn 39 the day before the inauguration and is the subject of endless profiles noting that he would be the first millennial president. Then Amy Klobuchar, born May 25, 1960, who will be 60 on Inauguration Day. After that, all the lower-ranking candidates are in the same prime age.

All are in the zone. And all stand apart from Sanders and Biden.

The former vice president has taken a lot of heat for things he said and positions he held 30 and 40 years ago. He's also in the middle of a #MeToo mess over his too-familiar way of touching people. Sanders, too  the man who honeymooned in the Soviet Union  can seem the product of an earlier era.

But there is a much simpler point to be made about Biden and Sanders. They are too old to occupy the nation's highest office  not because they are out of touch or because their records are out of line with today's sensibilities, but because they are just too old.

For those who respond, "Well, what about Trump?" remember: If the president serves two terms, he will leave the White House at 78, the oldest ever in office. But that is the age that Biden would begin his presidency. And Sanders is a year older.

Will Democrats realize that and nominate a candidate who draws a clear generational contrast with President Trump? In another age, Biden or Sanders might have been a plausible nominee (although both have tried and failed). But not now.


Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BYRON YORK

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years was the first White House Easter Egg Roll held?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The credibility of the Democratic Party is now at issue.If Mueller could not find collusion, what reason is there to believe Rep. Jerry Nadler's judiciary committee will find it, and then convince the country that they have discovered what ex-FBI Director Mueller could not.With conspiracy and collusion off the table, and Mueller saying the case for obstruction is unproven, the renewed attack on Trump…[more]
 
 
—Patrick J. Buchanan, Syndicated Columnist and The American Conservative Magazine Founding Editor
— Patrick J. Buchanan, Syndicated Columnist and The American Conservative Magazine Founding Editor
 
Liberty Poll   

How likely are you to read all or a significant part of the Mueller Report?