The Justice Department charged four Chinese intelligence officers on Monday with a 2017 hack of credit-reporting giant Equifax, which compromised the personal data of nearly 150 million Americans.
“This was a deliberate and sweeping intrusion into the private information of the American people,” Attorney General William Barr said in a press conference on the announcement.
Wu Zhiyong, Wang Qian, Xu Ke, and Liu Lei, members of the People’s Liberation Army’s 54th Research Institute, are charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit computer fraud, conspiracy to commit economic espionage, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, as well as two counts of unauthorized access and intentional damage to a protected computer, one count of economic espionage, and three counts of wire fraud.
The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Atlanta last week, alleges that the soldiers used a vulnerability in Equifax’s online dispute portal to access its secure servers over several weeks. The group ran approximately 9,000 queries while routing traffic through 34 servers to secretly obtain names, birth dates, and social security numbers for nearly half of all American citizens, before compressing and exporting the data.
“There were 11 bodies pulled from the wreckage,” said one official privy to the panicked conversations that swirled through the corridors of power that morning. “We are talking about the entire inner sanctum of the Quds Force. This wasn’t just Hajj Qassem [Suleimani] and Abu Mahdi [al-Muhandis]. This was everyone who mattered to them in Iraq and beyond.”
Another source, a western intelligence agency, was more circumspect, suggesting that those killed may have been less decisive in the Iranian nexus than the Iraqis believed. “However, the [assassinations] may have significant repercussions for the relationship between the [Quds Force] and Iran-aligned groups in Iraq in the near term,” an official said.
In the 40-day mourning period to mark the Iranian general’s death, which ended last Thursday, the fallout in Iraq has barely subsided. If anything, its impact has become more acute there, as well as in Suleimani’s homeland of Iran, and elsewhere in a region he had come to dominate like no other figure.
From the bunkers of south Beirut to the battlefields of northern Syria and the combustible streets of Iraq, the loss of Suleimani and his entourage has derailed much of Iran’s momentum in the region and exposed to rare vulnerability the opaque Quds Force it has used to project its influence over two decades.
The assassination has also shone a light on the complicated relationship between the Iranian leadership and the Iraqi government, senior members of which have scrambled ever since to resurrect Suleimani’s core regional projects located as far away as the Lebanese capital and Damascus. The reckoning started as soon as the dead were buried.
Plus attempts by Iran to get Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to help fill the void.
In interviews, three caucus volunteers described serious concerns about rushed preparations for the Feb. 22 election, including insufficient training for a newly-adopted electronic vote-tally system and confusing instructions on how to administer the caucuses. There are also unanswered questions about the security of Internet connections at some 2,000 precinct sites that will transmit results to a central “war room” set up by the Nevada Democratic Party.
In a major speech about the future of Europe, delivered in Bruges on September 20th, 1988, she “began with a grand historical sweep, taking in the Romans, Magna Carta, the Glorious revolution and much more, all designed to show that Britain was part of European civilization.” Thatcher also made it clear that “Britain wanted no ‘cosy, isolated existence’ on the fringes: ‘Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.’”
What Thatcher did oppose was the project of “ever-closer union,” and the resulting weakening of the influence of nation states. She believed that Europe should not be a centralizing power that incubated supranational institutions—particularly as this model of centralization was just then in the throes of spectacular failure within the Soviet Union. Instead, as she outlined in a speech at The Hague on May 15th, 1992, she favored a looser form of European co-operation, by which states retained their sovereign freedoms—including control of their borders. This, she believed, would accommodate the political and cultural diversity of Europe, including the eastern European countries that, she hoped, would be offered full EC membership. As Moore notes, in fact, she was one of the few prominent European politicians of the 1980s who had recognized that cities such as Warsaw, Prague and Budapest were very much European cities that had been cut off from their historical and cultural roots.
In her speech at The Hague, as Moore summarizes it, “she prophesied that large-scale immigration caused by free movement would cause ‘ethnic conflict,’ and bring about the rise of extremist parties, that there would be ‘national resentment’ because of one-size-fits-all financial and economic policies under a single currency, and that a more centralized EC would not be able to work with the influx of new member states from the former Eastern Bloc.”
ICE said in a statement that California’s law doesn’t supersede federal law and “will not govern the conduct of federal officers acting pursuant to duly enacted laws passed by Congress that provide the authority to make administrative arrests of removable aliens inside the United States.”
“Our officers will not have their hands tied by sanctuary rules when enforcing immigration laws to remove criminal aliens from our communities,” David Jennings, ICE’s field office director in San Francisco, said in the statement.
Clayton Williams, RIP. He was that close to beating Ann Richards for Texas governor in 1990 before he shot his mouth off, not realizing that you can never trusts journalists to keep something that hurts a Republican quiet. Had he won, it’s extremely doubtful that George W. Bush gets elected governor in 1994, and the modern history of America turns out very differently…
“The 25-year-old man accused of fatally stabbing a library security officer to death had been released without bail after being accused of trying to rape a woman at Montefiore Nyack Hospital in November.” Thanks to Democratic “reforms,” attempting to rape a woman in a hospital in New York is now effectively a misdemeanor.
“Ilhan Omar DID marry her brother, reveals Somali community leader, who says both she and her husband told him Ahmed Elmi was her sibling and she would do what she had to do to get him ‘papers’ to keep him in US.” (Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ.)
Speaking of pointing and laughing: How #NeverTrumpers are the waterboys of the D.C. elite. “All of their predictions are based on the conventional wisdom and assumptions of an insulted and excluded D.C. intelligentsia, and all are wrong.”
This was Rusty. For 10 years he comforted patients and staff at St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg. Yesterday, one day after his eighteenth birthday, Rusty passed away. Flowers and a pair of his trademark glasses were left on his favorite chair. He is our fifteenth 15/10 ❤️ pic.twitter.com/LylNq0tCSu
I heard a little more barking than normal from the puppy corral, so I went to check it out. It was Rocky, letting me know that his brother Ryman… might need a little help. pic.twitter.com/iu605vulW7
There was no stratagem too silly for Remainers to deploy if it had any chance of blocking or delaying Brexit. No wonder the UK electorate got tired of the endless squabbling and foot-dragging and handed Boris Johnson the biggest Tory parliamentary mandate since Margaret Thatcher’s 1983 landslide.
If the European Union were merely the European Market, Brexit would be foolish: The United Kingdom has enjoyed a kind of privileged access to the Common Market because it retains its own powerful currency rather than the Euro, which in reality is managed on behalf of Germany and against the interests of Southern Europe. But the European Union is not just a market but a political project, really a kind of institutionalized utopian project.
European Council president Donald Tusk said, “I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilization in its entirety.” It’s easy to point and laugh at such an extravagant statement, but Tusk was verbalizing the incredible challenge Brexit presents to a certain kind of European mind, a mind conditioned to the idea that democracy inheres not in popular sovereignty — democratic peoples governing themselves — but in the elite administration of human rights, insulated from democratic passions and prejudices.
It is this worldview that has shaped the construction of the European Union. The EU is governed by an unelected Commission and an unelected Court, both joined to an elected Parliament with no real legislative power. Can you impeach a European commissioner? Can you vote for one? Or vote to remove one? No, non, nein!
The European project that the Commission promotes and protects is guided by a spirit of ever-closer union, not the laws and treaties it makes. The European Union does not respect votes that go against that spirit, such as Ireland’s vote against the Lisbon treaty; instead, it forces reruns. It does not respect its own commitments, either: Angela Merkel’s welcome to 1 million refugees and migrants in 2015 totally blew apart the supposedly solemn Dublin Accords. It plays favorites: The pro-EU Emmanuel Macron is allowed to temporarily blow through the budgeting and debt requirements imposed on member states, but those same requirements are enforced with fervor against populists such as Italy’s Matteo Salvini. And it has no qualms about interfering in the politics of its member states: During the Euro crisis, recalcitrant national governments in Italy and Greece were replaced by a combination of pressure from above in the form of the Commission and the European Central Bank, and from sideways in the form of captured native interests.
In short, untethered from real democratic input, the EU at once suffocates European life with regulation and unmoors it with lawless caprice.
The response of the European Union to Brexit isn’t rebuke and repentance, a newfound willingness to accede to the wishes of the democratic peoples within it. No, it’s doubling down. MEP Guy Verhofstadt has said that Brexit has underscored the need to “make it into a real Union, a Union without opt-in, without opt-outs, without rebates, without exceptions. Only then we can defend our interests and defend our values.”
Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Nomenklatur!
That’s what the UK is leaving behind, and good riddance.
A few tweets:
So #thick is trending, driven by Remoaners who think they’re so much smarter than the 17.4m people who voted for Brexit. If you’re all so f*cking smart, how did you get beaten by a bunch of thickos?
If after having 3+ years to work it out, you still think that Brexit and Trump happened primarily because of 'racism' then you have NO RIGHT to call anybody else 'thick' or 'uneducated'…
Sit down. Be humble.
People are tired of the screeching. It's embarrassing.
Welcome to another Friday LinkSwarm! If you’re reading this, you haven’t died from the Coronavirus yet, despite China’s best efforts! And so many Babylon Bee slams of CNN that I couldn’t just pick one:
This morning’s contarvirus totals:
Total Infected: 9,776 (up from 2116 Sunday)
Total Deaths: 213
Total Recovered: 187
Number of Countries Where Cases Have Been Confirmed (new in bold): 22 (China (including Hong Kong), Thailand, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Taiwan, Malaysia, Macau, South Korea, United States of America, France, Germany, United Areb Emirates, Canada, Italy, Vietnam, Cambodia, Finland, India, Napal, Philippines, Sri Lanka)
Thoughts: If that’s not quite exponential growth it’s a pretty good first cousin. A case in Mumbai is scary. 11 cases in Japan is scary for the opposite reason, in that the Japanese take hygiene very seriously and have been unable to prevent spread there. No confirmed cases in Indonesia, which is probably only a matter of time.
The Cornoavirus is the demon bedeviling Xi Jinping: “Yes, ‘demon’ is a metaphor for a pathogen capable of killing millions. However, it is a demon the dictatorship’s repressive policies animate and tolerate in lieu of free communication.”
2019-nCoV, however, is beyond Xi’s dictatorial control. China’s dictatorship may awe Free World idiots, but it cannot intimidate a pathogen.
The coronavirus and its potential consequences of mass death expose the dictatorship’s brittleness. If you prefer, substitute “incompetence masked by police intimidation and lack of free expression” for “brittleness.”
Brutal authoritarian political control exacts overt and covert systemic costs. Western commentators — The New York Times’ Tom Friedman is a particularly smarmy example — admire authoritarian China’s alleged skill at solving major problems that dithering Western democracies cannot. What really dazzles Friedman and his ilk is the regime’s one-command-solves-it pose. Information control, especially control of dissent, bolsters this fraud.
Since 1980, China has made extraordinary economic progress, but its government’s destructive decisions are telling. The notorious one-child policy produced a demographic devil. What Western admirers touted as a farsighted plan to promote zero population growth killed millions of baby girls, skewed female-male sex ratios and, as of 2010, began creating a worker shortage.
Doctors in China and several Asian countries — the virus is on the verge of savaging Thailand — advocate isolating infected patients. The Great Firewall of China isolates the Chinese people from global information access and sharing. Beijing demands its citizens use state-sponsored social media in lieu of global alternatives. Isolation from information sharing hinders angry citizens from criticizing the communist leaders.
But this system isolates Chinese leaders from bad news — like mass illness — that caring human beings must share….As the party bigwigs dither, a deadly pathogen kills.
It was an example of ‘No Borders’ but not in a good way. The pathogen got on a plane abetted by a delay in acknowledgement. “The Chinese government failed to act quickly enough to curb the spread of the Wuhan virus, risking further outbreaks,” Guan Yi, the Director of the State Key Laboratory of Emerging Infectious Diseases at the University of Hong Kong told the Asia Times. The Chinese government’s own data, hosted on Wikipedia, confirms this. It shows how at the beginning the numbers were small, the infection still all in one place. After a week it blew up.
This illustrates how giant totalitarian governments like China’s can be at a disadvantage in dealing with emergent events. What it gains in ruthless response cannot always make up for lost response time caused by the official denial of embarrassing facts. That explains why establishments are often surprised by events like Brexit and Hillary Clinton’s shock loss. They are unexpected because they were not in the 5 year plan. They arrive like a bolt from the blue.
When the unexpected happens the official Narrative often increases the reaction time of the system. While events are slow moving there may be no penalty but in the fast moving global world threats like the coronavirus may hit the public even before institutions admit it exists. The old model of globalization has paradoxically both speeded up the rate at which events occur and slowed the rate at which behemoth transnational institutions can respond.
The result is a mismatch and failure of institutions is the theme which unites Brexit, the US impeachment and the repeated viral threats from China.
Back on January 1st, eight Chinese doctors tried to warn people about a “viral pneumonia” going around. Want to guess what happened? That’s right. They were punished for spreading rumors.
Kurt Schlichter thinks that President Donald Trump needs to get ahead of the coronavirus curve by communicating with the public, lest the impeachment-thwarted Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) make it into his “Katrina.” (Hat tip: Director Blue.)
Meet Dr. Peng Zhou a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Leader of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunization Group. You know, the same institute that posted a “help-wanted” ad to research Ebola and SARS-associated coronaviruses in bats just before the local coronavirus outbreak there. What are the odds?
Speaking of China, I meant to blog this and forgot until Dwight reminded me: Charles M. Lieber, the chair of Harvard’s chemistry department, “a leader in the field of nanoscale electronics, has not been accused of sharing sensitive information with Chinese officials, but rather of hiding — from Harvard, from the National Institutes of Health and from the Defense Department — the amount of money that Chinese funders were paying him.”
Dr. Lieber was one of three scientists to be charged with crimes on Tuesday.
Zaosong Zheng, a Harvard-affiliated cancer researcher was caught leaving the country with 21 vials of cells stolen from a laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston, according to the authorities. They said he had admitted that he had planned to turbocharge his career by publishing the research in China under his own name. He was charged with smuggling goods from the United States and with making false statements, and was being held without bail in Massachusetts after a judge determined that he was a flight risk. His lawyer has not responded to a request for comment.
The third was Yanqing Ye, who had been conducting research at Boston University’s department of physics, chemistry and biomedical engineering until last spring, when she returned to China. Prosecutors said she hid the fact that she was a lieutenant in the People’s Liberation Army, and continued to carry out assignments from Chinese military officers while at B.U.
Know how the MSM keeps harping on President Donald Trump’s “unpopularity?” A deep dive into various poll metrics suggests “not so much.”
This is pretty interesting:
BREAKING: Eric Ciaramella,the CIA operative believed to be the "whistleblower," is captured in this 2015 photo taking notes b/t Biden adviser Michael Carpenter & NSC's Liz Zentos in WH meeting w Ukrainian officials.Carpenter later appeared w Biden in infamous "son of a bitch" vid pic.twitter.com/nq4JNgCsJq
63 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. Are they all slack-jawed yokels motivated by hostility to geography, and facts? Do they all — or even most — have strong Southern accents? And, irrespective, is a Southern accent a predictor of stupidity? Many of my neighbors have strong southern accents. One of them is a surgeon. Whither nuance?
This particular clip has landed with such a bump because it also serves as an example of how inaccurately mediocrities tend to see themselves. Rick Wilson’s joke was second-rate and obviously pre-written, and yet Don Lemon reacted as if Wilson was Dave Chappelle — even going so far as to say he “needed” it. This behavior is learned. Since Donald Trump was elected, a certain set of political “strategists” — many of whom aren’t actually strategists, Ana Navarro — have come to see CNN as a clearing house for their bad one-liners, each sitting at home preparing zingers that they hope, once delivered, will go viral. This one has gone viral, of course, but for the opposite reason than its architects hoped: Because it is pathetic.
It’s about squishy prosecutors and judges who let repeat offenders walk free. It is about a city council that has designed this because anarchy will allow them to rebuild the city in a socialist image.
Today, a woman is dead and seven others are injured. A 9-year-old remains in the hospital. It is shameful but unfortunately predictable, given who we have running things around here.
Snip.
We do not let the cops do their jobs. The cops know who the gang members and drug dealers are. They also know that if they see a drug transaction and write it up for the prosecutor’s office, it’s going to get kicked because it’s not a serious enough crime. And when prosecutors pursue criminals, judges let them walk free.
The two suspects in this downtown shooting have been arrested 44 times with 20 convictions and 21 times with 15 convictions. Marquise Tolbert, the one with 20 convictions, had three felonies last year alone. You tell me how someone with three felonies in 2019 is walking around free and able to engage in a shootout that kills a woman and injures a bunch of other people, including a 9-year-old kid. Both Tolbert and William Tolliver, the other suspect, are just 24 years old. They both have previously been arrested and charged with drive-by shootings and unlawful possession of a firearm in 2018. So the courts knew full well that these were gun-toting gang members. Why did our justice system let them walk free? Why do we place criminals above law-abiding citizens?
Never Trump Republicans looked even more ridiculous at the end of the March for Life than they did that morning.
Trump was embraced by the largest gathering of pro-life Americans and Trump embraced them. Trump at the March for Life:
Sadly, the far-left is actively working to erase our God-given rights, shut down faith-based charities, ban religious believers from the public square, and silence Americans who believe in the sanctity of life. They are coming after me because I am fighting for you and we are fighting for those who have no voice.
Never Trump Republicans can’t imagine a man like Trump attending the March for Life.
Never Trumpism is built on a foundation of sanctimony.
These sanctimonious few don’t like how Trump speaks. They don’t like his bombast. They don’t like his past. He’s not George Bush.
Get over it. He’s winning.
That he is not George Bush might be Trump’s greatest transgression to Never Trumpers. Much of the hatred is mercenary, as so many have suffered financially from the end of their consultancy gravy train.
But Trump actually attended the March for Life. If you don’t think that matters to the 100,000+ who marched, then you can’t judge prevailing winds.
Snip.
What’s also striking about the Never Trumpers is how their hatred resembles a pathology, like some deep raw childhood memory. Trump is their aunt’s cat who used to viciously scratch them each visit. Trump is the playground bully who threw the football at their face. Trump is the twisted cousin who made you look at his dead animals in jars hidden in the back shed. He’s the bogeyman of their nightmares.
It all wells up in them, decades later, in outbursts, fears, and rage. It’s unhinged.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome is burning out the core audiences that made the media profitable. The Impeachment Eve rallies failed miserably with turnouts in the hundreds in Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. A month later, turnout at the Women’s March had declined from the hundreds of thousands to the thousands. Even as impeachment was underway, the audience wasn’t there.” (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Chip Roy produce a proposal to fix health care.
James Younger case ends with joint custody and crazy mom not allowed to inflict hormone therapy on her eight-year old.
Border agents find longest smuggling tunnel yet discovered in San Diego, over three-quarters of a mile. “It includes an extensive rail/cart system, forced air ventilation, high voltage electrical cables and panels, an elevator at the tunnel entrance, and a complex drainage system.” (Hat tip: CutJibNews at Ace of Spades HQ.)
IBM replaces longtime CEO Virginia Rometty with Arvind Krishna. Probably a good move. The few people I knew who worked at IBM under her tenure had little good to say about the company, whose longterm trend has been offshoring and outsourcing rather than hiring fulltime U.S. employees. But every group in IBM seems like its own little fiefdom.
Dwight offers a moderately deepish dive into two fraud cases, including a celebrated social scientist and a celebrated organic farmer.
Congrats to Republican Gary Gates for winning the Texas House District 28 special election runoff over Democrat Eliz Markowitz. This is Gates’ first successful race in eight tries, and he supposedly threw a ton of money into it.
I believe this is YouTube/Twitter personality Sargon of Akkad (though this is a different YouTube channel from his main one) on the big nothingness of Iran’s retaliation:
“It looks like the Iranian regime is actually so impotent they couldn’t kill a single American.”
“This was just the yappy dog, yapping.”
(Hat tip: Poster TheWanderingJewels on this Instapundit thread for Stephen green linking yesterdays’s Iran piece.)
Via Dwight comes word that movie and theater critic John Simon has died.
I found Simon an extremely valuable movie critic for National Review, because he seemed to hate 90+% of all movies. That meant you couldn’t take a negative review by him as gospel. However, on the rare occasions he raved about a film, you knew it was worth watching. Two films that I remember seeing based almost entirely on Simon raves were the original Japanese version of Shall We Dance and Donnie Brasco, both worthy of your attention.
Today there’s no one who fills their niche. Sure, there are SJW critics who are always wrong, but their wrongness doesn’t always translate into hating all great films in a way you can trust…
As I did in previous months, here’s an update on the number of Twitter followers of the Democratic presidential candidates, updated since last month’s update.
Three months ago I started using a tool that gives me precise Twitter follower counts.
I do this Twitter Primary update the last Tuesday of each month, following Monday’s Clown Car Update.
The following are all the declared Democratic Presidential candidates ranked in order of Twitter followers:
For reference, President Donald Trump’s personal account has 67,030,782 followers, up 704,954 since the last roundup, so once again Trump has gained more Twitter followers this month than all the Democratic presidential contenders combined. The official presidential @POTUS account has 27,163,640 followers, which I’m sure includes a great deal of overlap with Trump’s personal followers.
A few notes:
Twitter counts change all the time, so the numbers might be slightly different when you look at them. And if you’re not looking at the counts with a tool like Social Blade, Twitter does significant (and weird) rounding.
Sanders crushed it this month, adding nearly 230,000 followers; no one else even came close six digit follower gains.
Elizabeth Warren gained 237,827 followers last month, but only 79,433 this month. Even though that’s the second biggest gain, it suggests that her campaign may have peaked and that she failed to become the far-left alternative to Sanders.
Andrew Yang’s momentum seemed to slow as well, but it was still enough to carry him up over the 1 million mark.
Along with Joe Biden, Warren and Yang, Tulsi Gabbard was the only candidate to gain over 100,000 followers last month. That momentum seems to have slowed dramatically, with just under 17,000 new followers for November, which is right in line with what Amy Klobuchar and Julian Castro did. All are below The Andrew Yang Line, and none seem a threat to break into a higher tier anymore.
Michael Bloomberg joins the list in seventh place, with 2,343,799 followers, a majority of which I would guess are New York City/business related. Can he gain the 400,000+ followers to overcome the moribund Williamson campaign for sixth place between now and Iowa? I’d bet not.
Deval Patrick joins the race with 51,868 Twitter followers, or the sort of numbers garnered by people who drop out of the race, not get in it.
No one below Joe Biden is on a trajectory to pass Joe Biden in followers before Iowa.
Marianne Williamson’s second straight sub-1,000 gain month shows that the magic is gone and probably isn’t coming back.
Steyer still seems to be getting a pretty pathetic return on his Twitter ad buys.
Another debate, Bernie ties Biden, Buttigieg tops the first two states, and billionaire Bloomberg jumps in, only to find himself tied with the guy who just walked across New Hampshire alone. It’s your Democratic Presidential clown car update!
Polls
Emerson: Biden 27, Sanders 27, Warren 20, Buttigieg 7, Yang 4, Harris 3, Gabbard 2, Steyer 2, Klobuchar 1, Booker 1, Castro 1, Bloomberg 1, Sestak 1. That’s the first poll to have Biden and Sanders tied, but the sample size of 468 is puny for a national poll. Still, it’s pretty hilarious to see billionaire Bloomberg tied with Sestak, AKA the guy who just walked across New Hampshire alone. That’s some mighty fine use of your money, Bloomey…
Civiqs/Iowa State University (Iowa): Buttigieg 26, Warren 19, Sanders 18, Biden 12, Klobuchar 5, Yang 4, Gabbard 2, Harris 2, Steyer 2, Booker 1, Bullock 1, Bloomberg 1, Williamson 1, Castro 1. Sample size of 614.
Siena (New York): Biden 24, Warren 14, Sanders 13, Buttigieg 5, Harris 3, Yang 2, Booker 2, Castro 1, Klobuchar 1, Gabbard 1, Bennet 1.
St. Anselm (New Hampshire): Buttigieg 25, Biden 15, Warren 15, Sanders 9, Klobuchar 6, Steyer 5, Gabbard 3, Booker 3, Yang 2, Harris 1, Patrick, Williamson and Delaney all less than 1. Buttigieg has money and top polling spots in Iowa and New Hampshire, which would normally set you up pretty well to clinch the nomination, but outside of those two states he’s still in single digits, and non-white voters seem immune to his charms…
The most noteworthy event at Wednesday night’s Democratic debate in Atlanta was something that didn’t happen: Nobody did anything to change the fact that former Vice President Joe Biden is the seemingly unshakable front-runner for the nomination of his party.
It’s easy to lose sight of how consistent the race has been since Biden announced his candidacy last spring. For all the momentary gyrations along the way, the polls have barely budged in the five months since the first debate. On June 26, Sen. Bernie Sanders stood at 16.9 percent in national polls; today he’s at 16.7. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has risen to the top of some Iowa and New Hampshire polls in recent weeks, was at 6.6 in late June; today he’s a bit higher at 8 percent. Sen. Kamala Harris was a little higher then (7 percent) than she is now (4.3). Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and most of the other candidates on stage Wednesday night have remained mired around 2 percent since they entered the race. The biggest shift over the past five months has been Elizabeth Warren’s surge from 12.8 to 18 percent.
But Joe Biden? The former vice president was at 32 percent on June 26, and today he sits at … 30.7 percent.
It gives me no great pleasure to point out that Biden remains the overwhelming favorite to win his party’s nomination. Biden has never been my favorite Democrat; he certainly wasn’t Wednesday night — which happened to be his 77th birthday — when he struggled, as he always does, to complete coherent sentences. That matters to me. But does it matter to most Democratic primary voters? I see no evidence that it does — any more than it matters that pundits like myself swoon for Harris and Booker and Klobuchar, with their well-formed arguments and turns of phrase, month after month, debate after debate, while they barely manage keep their campaigns running and funded.
Snip.
And so it went, with every candidate playing to type. Warren talked with fire in her eyes about all the amazing things she’ll do with the money she takes from rich people. Sanders sounded just as angry and disgusted with American capitalism as he always does. Buttigieg looked like a guy who’ll run a very effective campaign for president 15 years from now. Harris, Klobuchar, and Booker seemed frustrated at their inability to make any headway.
And Joe Biden kept right on winning, despite himself.
That last one is via Ann Althouse, who says “Maybe Joe Biden is gumming up the works. They don’t know how to attack him, and he stands there, undying, grinning forever, secure in the doting expectation that the nomination will wander over and snuggle into his lap like a new grandchild.”
Nancy Courtney displays a Joe Biden sign in her yard, makes phone calls for his campaign and supports the former vice president “100 percent,” she said. But the sluggish state of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s organization in her city of Burlington, Iowa, had her fuming one recent evening.
“In Burlington, they are duds,” said Ms. Courtney, an activist who is married to the Democratic chairman in Des Moines County. “I will help, but there’s no excitement there. There’s nothing. I will do whatever it takes to get him elected, but I can’t go down there when there’s nothing going on.”
Bob Kling, a city councilman in Indianola, just south of Des Moines, was promoted by the Biden campaign as a prominent local endorser. But asked about Mr. Biden’s standing in his state, Mr. Kling was blunt: “Not as great as he was. Buttigieg is kind of taking the lead in the polls,” he said, referring to Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind.
Since late summer, Mr. Biden, the early front-runner in the Democratic primary, has faced an increasingly difficult path in Iowa — dropping in the polls and struggling with an enthusiasm gap and an inclination among undecided caucusgoers to consider all options. Now, 10 weeks before the Iowa caucuses, even his own supporters in the state are growing more worried about his prospects.
The heightened anxiety comes as the candidate and campaign are raising expectations about his ability to compete here, an implicit acknowledgment that a substantial loss here could be a significant early setback.
On Sunday, his campaign sent a fund-raising email that said, “we need to play to win in Iowa,” and on Saturday Mr. Biden declared that he would win the caucuses as he accepted highly coveted endorsements from former Gov. Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie Vilsack, a prominent party leader. The emphasis is a striking departure from the messaging earlier in the fall, when his campaign suggested he did not need to win the state to secure the Democratic nomination.
Yet voters at Mr. Biden’s events, along with county chairs and party strategists, characterize his on-the-ground organization as scattershot, visibly present in some counties but barely detectable in others. His events are often relatively small and sometimes subdued affairs, and in a state where enthusiasm can make or break a candidate on caucus night — a big part of caucusing centers on persuading friends and neighbors — Mr. Biden’s operation has found it difficult to build contagious excitement, these Democrats say.
There is also the sense among many Iowa Democrats that Mr. Biden, who entered the race later than many of his rivals, has been less engaged in the state than his top rivals. He has made roughly 50 stops in Iowa since joining the race in April, according to the Des Moines Register’s candidate tracker, far fewer than many of his opponents.
Biden did not provide any specific names, but he said several people are qualified, including “the former assistant attorney general who got fired,” referring to former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; “the woman who should have been the governor of Georgia,” referring to Stacey Abrams; and “the two senators from the state of New Hampshire,” referring to Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D) and Maggie Hassan (D).
The Yates name is pandering to the TDS crowd. Shaheen and Hassan make sense only if he’s more afraid of suburban women defecting to Trump than black people, for which Abrams is now the obvious pick over the failing Harris. One reason for Biden’s debate stumbles: occasional lapses into a childhood stutter:
Bill Bowden had the locker next to Biden’s at Archmere. I called Bowden recently. “It was just kind of a funny thing, you know?” he told me. “Hopefully he wasn’t hurt by it.” Bob Markel, another high-school buddy of Biden’s, went a little further when we spoke: “ ‘H-H-H-H-Hey, J-J-J-J-J-Joe B-B-B-B-Biden’—that’s how he’d be addressed.” Markel said the Archmere guys called him “Stutterhead,” or “Hey, Stut !” for short. He fears that he himself may have made fun of Biden once or twice. “I never remember him being offended. He probably was,” Markel said. “I think one of his coping mechanisms was to not show it.” Bowden and Markel have remained friends with Biden to this day.
Just because it’s story obviously planted in the media for sympathetic coverage doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the world’s richest men, has formally launched a Democratic bid for president.
Ending weeks of speculation, the 77-year-old former Republican announced his candidacy Sunday in a written statement posted on a campaign website describing himself as uniquely positioned to defeat President Donald Trump. He will quickly follow with a massive advertising campaign blanketing airways in key primary states across the U.S.
Snip.
Bloomberg’s entrance comes just 10 weeks before primary voting begins, an unorthodox move that reflects anxiety within the Democratic Party about the strength of its current candidates.
As a centrist [riiiight – LP] with deep ties to Wall Street, Bloomberg is expected to struggle among the party’s energized progressive base. He became a Democrat only last year. [False. He’s long been a Democrat, he just stopped pretending to be a Republican last year. – LP] Yet his tremendous resources and moderate profile could be appealing in a primary contest that has become, above all, a quest to find the person best-positioned to deny Trump a second term next November.
Forbes ranked Bloomberg as the 11th-richest person in the world last year with a net worth of roughly $50 billion. Trump, by contrast, was ranked 259th with a net worth of just over $3 billion.
Already, Bloomberg has vowed to spend at least $150 million of his fortune on various pieces of a 2020 campaign, including more than $100 million for internet ads attacking Trump, between $15 million and $20 million on a voter registration drive largely targeting minority voters, and more than $30 million on an initial round of television ads.
What a pathetic, half-assed piker. You’re worth $50 billion and you’re only willing to dedicate less than 1% of your resources for running for president? If he were serious, he’s put a minimum of $1 billion into the race. That’s “Fuck you I want to win” money. Bloomberg’s chump change is “Eh, whatever” money. Conor Friedersdorf thinks that Bloomberg’s embrace of stop-and-frisk should disqualify him. Since when have Democratic voters showed over-much concern for civil liberties? (Maybe McGovern 72?) The hard left sorts at the Daily Beast think that Bloomberg’s entrance into the race is a gift from heaven inevitable historical processes for Warren and Sanders:
Elizabeth Warren, who has spent much of the election staying clear of directly attacking political opponents while railing against systematic corruption, faces a new reality: a 77-year-old rich guy worth $54 billion has bulldozed into the Democratic primary. And Bernie Sanders, whose crusade against the billionaire class has become as ubiquitous as the finger wave that accompanies it, now has another reason to chomp at the bit.
Enter: Michael Bloomberg, the latest billionaire to declare he is running for the Democratic nomination in 2020. In announcing his bid on Sunday, the former New York City mayor said he is running to “defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America.” In a statement and accompanying video, he said, “we cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions. He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage.”
Allies of Warren and Sanders allies don’t think Bloomberg, a New Yorker by way of Medford, Massachusetts, will have the chance to take on fellow New Yorker, Donald Trump. In fact, they view the billionaire’s entrance into the party’s primary as a political gift.
“This may be one of the most important things that happened to her campaign,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is supporting Warren. “Bloomberg’s entrance centers the conversation to the core themes that have been instrumental to Elizabeth Warren’s rise,” he said, including “the systemic corruption of our democracy by billionaires.”
“The more the campaign is grounded and centered in those issues, the more likely it is that Elizabeth Warren will win.”
The thought occurs to me that Bloomberg might actually do better if he embraced the role of evil plutocrat the same way “heel turn” wrestlers get the biggest fans. Show up at the next Democratic forum in a golden palanquin born by four beautiful, oiled blond women, only to step out and light a cigar with a $100 bill. That would get people’s attention. Right now he’s just a tiny mushy pile of richguy nothing. 538 doesn’t like his chances either:
While some unknown candidates (like South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg) have been able to overcome even lower polling numbers early in the race, it is no longer early in the race, and Bloomberg is not unknown. Sixty-eight percent of likely Democratic primary voters are able to form an opinion of Bloomberg, again according to an average of national polls from November. They are split, too, on whether those opinions are positive (37 percent rated him favorably) or negative (31 percent rated him unfavorably). Those mediocre favorability ratings — among members of his own party, remember — are a major hurdle to him winning the nomination. Being popular is, generally speaking, helpful to a campaign (big surprise, I know).
But we know Bloomberg, at least, still thinks he has a shot at the nomination — so what might be his strategy? Geographically, his campaign-in-waiting has already tipped its hand: Bloomberg plans to skip the first four states on the primary calendar and focus on winning the delegate-rich Super Tuesday states instead. (He won’t even be on the ballot in New Hampshire.) Needless to say, this strategy flies in the face of conventional wisdom about how to win a presidential primary, but the Bloomberg team feels it doesn’t have a choice: Other candidates simply have too much of a head start organizing in the early states. However, Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire and has said he will self-fund his campaign, so he probably does have the resources to get off the ground quickly in states where he doesn’t yet face a lot of competition. But there’s no guarantee that his approach would work — especially after a month of exuberant headlines about his rivals winning Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
In fact, previous presidential candidates who tried some version of this strategy failed miserably. For instance, in 2008, when Rudy Giuliani was still best remembered as a former New York City mayor, he counted on a win in the Florida Republican primary to neutralize his expected losses elsewhere. He led in the Florida polls — often by huge margins — right up until Iowa and New Hampshire. But afterward, then-Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney surged past Guiliani in the Sunshine State, and he dropped out after placing third there. Similarly, in 1988, then-Sen. Al Gore attempted to win the Democratic nomination by ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire and focusing on winning a bunch of Super Tuesday contests in the South, his home region. And while Gore did win several states that day, it still didn’t translate into the momentum he needed in subsequent contests, and he too lost the nomination. Indeed, Bloomberg would be trying to join a short list of only two modern presidential candidates who won their party’s nomination despite losing both Iowa and New Hampshire.
As he struggles with low-single-digit polling and the prospect of missing the cut for next month’s debate, Booker has become a symbol for the harsh reality of this year’s nominating process. It is just not enough to win plaudits for performance, as he has after multiple events, or to execute a clear campaign strategy. In the shadow of Trump’s potential reelection, Democratic voters have become focused on winning and are unforgiving with their doubts.
Booker has sought to answer that concern by preaching the power of empathy. He appeals to white Iowa and New Hampshire voters by talking about the problems of inner cities and poverty. He has confronted Trump by explaining his compassion for his supporters. And unlike other campaigns that have pivoted on message and policy, he has made clear he will not change his strategy to win.
In my heart, I know the answers. He’s relentlessly, unflappably earnest and corny—a fount of dad jokes whose speaking style, when cranked up to high, can make him come off as a campy youth pastor. (It doesn’t help in this regard that he decided to make “love” the central theme of his campaign.) There was his “I am Spartacus” moment during the Kavanaugh hearings (which, my God). As far as I can tell, he basically doesn’t have a health care plan. He will never, ever be beloved by the party’s left thanks both to his time as mayor of Newark, where he oversaw a massive and controversial charter-focused overhaul of the city’s public school system with a giant injection of cash from Mark Zuckerberg, and the fact that he’s the Democrat who decided it was a good idea to defend the honor of Bain Capital when President Barack Obama was hammering Mitt Romney for his time there.
And, to be clear, he’s not even my first choice for a nominee. Personally, I’m still toggling between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
But here’s the thing: It is pretty clear that some portion of the Democratic Party has made up its mind to vote for a business-friendly moderate who wants to build incrementally on the Obama administration’s accomplishments, and who will try futilely to bring some measure of unity back to the United States. And if that’s what you’re looking for, Booker strikes me as the best of our current options.
“Sure, he sort of sucks, and I’m not voting for him, but for you people not as committed to social justice as I am, he’s a less horrible alternative than others.” Man, I can’t see any way that pitch can possibly fail…
The 60-second ad, titled “Out of Towner,” commemorates Mr. Bullock’s 100th day outside Montana running for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to the Senate Leadership Fund. The ad shows a cartoon “Bullock for Prez” plane jetting across the country to stops in San Francisco, New York and Washington and labels Mr. Bullock “Out of touch with Montana.”
Term limits prevent the Montana Democrat from running for governor again, and his presidential campaign surrogates and spokespeople have repeatedly said that he has no interest in running for the Senate. Mr. Bullock, however, reportedly discussed his political future with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer this year, and other Senate Democrats have publicly called for him to challenge Mr. Daines.
Some Republicans think Mr. Bullock may follow in the footsteps of former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Colorado Democrat, and ditch a long shot 2020 presidential bid for the chance to flip a GOP-controlled Senate seat. The Senate Leadership Fund’s ad appears to be the sort of preemptive fire Republicans hope dissuades Mr. Bullock from copying Mr. Hickenlooper.
While “Mayor Pete” rises in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is a delight to watch the media tiptoe around his very weak pull with black voters. The New York Times today ran a story headlined, “Pete Buttigieg is Struggling with Black Voters. Here’s Why.” Except the story never really tells you probably the biggest reason why: American blacks are highly hostile to homosexuality. This fact goes completely unmentioned anywhere in the Times story, no doubt because it would blow all the fuses at the Times‘s intersectionality switchboard.
The Times does report something Henry Olsen noted in our podcast last week:
No Democrat in modern times has won the party’s nomination without claiming majorities of black voters, the most crucial voting bloc in South Carolina and in an array of delegate-rich Southern states. . . Mr. Buttigieg has so few black elected officials and former elected officials backing him that they could all fit into a single S.U.V.
Keep in mind that black voters in California voted the most heavily of all ethnic groups against same-sex marriage in the 2008 referendum on the issue. (A majority of whites and Asians voted in favor of gay marriage: Prop. 8 failed owing to hispanic and black voters.)
Former San Antonio Mayor and Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro: In. Twitter. Facebook. Castro discusses why his campaign is sucking. “What’s most surprising about Castro’s absence is how unsurprised so many people are by it, despite the fact that he’s been, by many measures, the most progressive candidate in the field.” Seems like you may have answered your own question there…
Former First Lady, New York Senator, Secretary of State and losing 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Probably not? But she’s still out there Clinton Foundationing…
Lots of people "jumping" into the race so I decided to do a few sets of 10 box jumps on the 30 inch platform as a warmup to my workout! pic.twitter.com/u2SQwCp3ra
Tulsi Gabbard trashed the Democratic Party as “not the party that is of, by and for the people,” accused Kamala Harris of trafficking in “lies and smears and innuendo” and attacked Pete Buttigieg as naive.
Her performance at Wednesday’s debate earned an attaboy from the Trump War Room. And some rank-and-file Democrats are at wit’s end with the congresswoman who Hillary Clinton called “the favorite of the Russians.”
“The question is whether she seriously hopes to be the nominee or if she has another agenda … her attacks on other candidates and her positions on issues seem very personal, not so much about a set of policies or worldview,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Bernie Sanders has “a coherent set of principles. Elizabeth Warren’s the same. I don’t perceive a fixed set of principles or worldview on her part.”
Demonstrating how divisive her campaign has become, the Trump War Room tweeted out a video clip of Gabbard attacking her own party with a “100” emoji. It received 4,500 retweets and 15,000 likes.
“She sort of seems to be filling a pretty strange lane. Is there a part of the party that hates the party?” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “It’s a little hard to figure out what itch she’s trying to scratch in the Democratic Party right now.”
Murphy is at least getting warm: Tulsi’s lane is the one for liberals, not who hate the Democratic Party, but who love America. Her near-isolationism is that of a veteran who loves America and its military. In that, she contrasts sharply with the rest of the field. Visceral anti-military and anti-American views have been central to the Democratic Party for a long time. Bernie Sanders, to take just one obvious instance, didn’t honeymoon in the Soviet Union because he is proud to be an American.
Mainstream Democratic candidates don’t announce their anti-Americanism out loud, of course. You generally need to infer it from their policies. But the presence of an actual patriot on the stage–and one, too, who considers Republicans to be fellow Americans–presents an obvious and unwelcome contrast.
I think Tulsi Gabbard would be the Democrats’ strongest potential nominee. On domestic issues, she should be plenty liberal enough for her party, while her pro-military but non-interventionist foreign policy views would attract blue collar Democrats back into the fold. She is also young and highly attractive. I think there is a good chance she could beat President Trump, while, in my view, candidates like Joe Biden, Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders are no-hopers.
The Democrats say they want a woman to be president, but they don’t mean it. When they have a woman on the debate stage who shares their views but not their hateful attitudes toward America and non-leftist Americans, they treat her like a skunk at a garden party.
Pitching fundraising for her: Sean Ono Lennon. Pretty sure that name wasn’t on anyone’s endorsement bingo card…
“I think that it’s unfortunate that we have someone on this stage that is attempting to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, who during the Obama administration spent four years full time on Fox News criticizing President Obama,” Harris said.
Gabbard then interjected, calling Harris’ attack “ridiculous,” but Harris just kept going — chastising Gabbard for meeting with President Donald Trump after the 2016 election, for being too friendly with Steve Bannon “to get” that meeting, and for not labeling Bashar al-Assad a “war criminal.”
The line of attack went well for Harris. The crowd went wild — but honestly, I sat on my couch shaking my head. See, what Harris (and apparently so many others in that audience) saw as a negative, I actually see as something great. Gabbard’s willingness to criticize people in her own party if she disagrees with them is not a flaw. In fact, it’s exactly what’s missing from our discourse.
The tone-deafness here is so extreme that it’s almost funny. Harris—whose biggest liabilities involve her questionable prosecutorial past—”rests her case” against Gabbard on the flimsy fact that her opponent retweeted Gabbard’s words? That’s exactly the sort of cockamamie conception of justice that has earned Harris her reputation as a shady cop in the first place.
Harris’ attack demonstrates exactly the sort of party-over-people and uphold-the-status-quo-at-all-costs mentality that Gabbard was trying to critique. It should not be considered a mark against a politician that she tries to influence people not already on her side. You can’t “bring the nation together” by refusing to talk to anyone who isn’t already on your political team.
And if questioning endless war calls one’s commitment to Democratic Party values into question, that’s a pretty sad comment on the state of the party.
Top Granite State Democrats question whether Patrick can capitalize on any geographical advantage in a race that already includes Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Laurie McCray, chairwoman of the Portsmouth Democrats, says Patrick will get a “fair shake” from voters. But she also expressed skepticism that Patrick “has the same relationship with Democrats on the ground here as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders do.”
Sanders won the 2016 New Hampshire primary by over 20 points and currently boasts a 90 full-time staffers in the state, according to his campaign. Warren made her first campaign stop back in January, and has since returned two dozen times to court voters.
“I don’t see what lane is empty,” former New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan told CBS News. “Every four years it seems somebody has to say they’re unhappy with the Democratic field, but there’s no new lane opened up by Deval Patrick or Michael Bloomberg.”
“There’s a challenge now in recruiting talent. Back in January, you would probably have gotten dozens of former Obama allies coming out for him because he’s still beloved,” Democratic Strategist Michael Ceraso argued.
Patrick looks more like Booker 2.0 than Obama 2.0. Three months ago he was boosting Warren. I guess he changed his mind…
“We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections, and that is why we are going to overturn Citizens United, that is why multi-billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg are not going to get very far in this election, that is why we are going to end voter suppression in America,” Sanders said during a town hall in New Hampshire following Bloomberg’s announcement.
Billionaire Tom Steyer: In. Twitter. Facebook. Bad week for Moneybags Junior. Will Farrell plays him as a supercreep on the SNL skit. And now that Bloomberg’s in, he’s not even the richest guy in the race anymore.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren: In. Twitter. Facebook. As much as she might try to hide the fact, Warren’s socialized medicine scheme would require rationing. They always do. She’s sorta kinda lying about sending her kid to public school. Says she wants to tear down the border wall, putting her out front in the illegal alien pandering sweepstakes.
These are people who were formerly in the roundup who have announced they’re not running, for which I’ve seen no recent signs they’re running, who declared then dropped out, or whose campaigns are so moribund I no longer feel like wasting my time gathering updates on them:
Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton (Dropped out August 23, 2019)
Update: Miramar, Florida Mayor Wayne Messam: Not that you care, but he officially dropped out November 20, 2019. I hope he paid his campaign workers their back wages…
This is an interesting piece on how Boeing lost its way, deliberately deciding to transition from a company that was engineering driven to one that wasn’t, starting with moving its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago:
On the tarmac, [CEO Phil] Condit stepped out of the jet, made a brief speech, then boarded a helicopter for an aerial tour of Boeing’s new corporate home: the Morton Salt building, a skyscraper sitting just out of the Loop in downtown Chicago. Boeing’s top management plus staff—roughly 500 people in all—would work here. They could see the boats plying the Chicago River and the trains rumbling over it. Condit, an opera lover, would have an easy walk to the Lyric Opera building. But the nearest Boeing commercial-airplane assembly facility would be 1,700 miles away.
The isolation was deliberate. “When the headquarters is located in proximity to a principal business—as ours was in Seattle—the corporate center is inevitably drawn into day-to-day business operations,” Condit explained at the time. And that statement, more than anything, captures a cardinal truth about the aerospace giant. The present 737 Max disaster can be traced back two decades—to the moment Boeing’s leadership decided to divorce itself from the firm’s own culture.
For about 80 years, Boeing basically functioned as an association of engineers. Its executives held patents, designed wings, spoke the language of engineering and safety as a mother tongue. Finance wasn’t a primary language. Even Boeing’s bean counters didn’t act the part. As late as the mid-’90s, the company’s chief financial officer had minimal contact with Wall Street and answered colleagues’ requests for basic financial data with a curt “Tell them not to worry.”
By the time I visited the company—for Fortune, in 2000—that had begun to change. In Condit’s office, overlooking Boeing Field, were 54 white roses to celebrate the day’s closing stock price. The shift had started three years earlier, with Boeing’s “reverse takeover” of McDonnell Douglas—so-called because it was McDonnell executives who perversely ended up in charge of the combined entity, and it was McDonnell’s culture that became ascendant. “McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money,” went the joke around Seattle. Condit was still in charge, yes, and told me to ignore the talk that somebody had “captured” him and was holding him “hostage” in his own office. But [President Harry] Stonecipher was cutting a Dick Cheney–like figure, blasting the company’s engineers as “arrogant” and spouting Harry Trumanisms (“I don’t give ’em hell; I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell”) when they shot back that he was the problem.
McDonnell’s stock price had risen fourfold under Stonecipher as he went on a cost-cutting tear, but many analysts feared that this came at the cost of the company’s future competitiveness. “There was a little surprise that a guy running a failing company ended up with so much power,” the former Boeing executive vice president Dick Albrecht told me at the time. Post-merger, Stonecipher brought his chain saw to Seattle. “A passion for affordability” became one of the company’s new, unloved slogans, as did “Less family, more team.” It was enough to drive the white-collar engineering union, which had historically functioned as a professional debating society, into acting more like organized labor. “We weren’t fighting against Boeing,” one union leader told me of the 40-day strike that shut down production in 2000. “We were fighting to save Boeing.”
Snip.
If Andrew Carnegie’s advice—“Put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket”—had guided Boeing before, these decisions accomplished roughly the opposite. The company would put its eggs in three baskets: military in St. Louis. Space in Long Beach. Passenger jets in Seattle. And it would watch that basket from Chicago. Never mind that the majority of its revenues and real estate were and are in basket three. Or that Boeing’s managers would now have the added challenge of flying all this blind—or by instrument, as it were—relying on remote readouts of the situation in Chicago instead of eyeballing it directly (as good pilots are incidentally trained to do). The goal was to change Boeing’s culture.
And in that, Condit and Stonecipher clearly succeeded. In the next four years, Boeing’s detail-oriented, conservative culture became embroiled in a series of scandals. Its rocket division was found to be in possession of 25,000 pages of stolen Lockheed Martin documents. Its CFO (ex-McDonnell) was caught violating government procurement laws and went to jail. With ethics now front and center, Condit was forced out and replaced with Stonecipher, who promptly affirmed: “When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm.” A General Electric alum, he built a virtual replica of GE’s famed Crotonville leadership center for Boeing managers to cycle through. And when Stonecipher had his own career-ending scandal (an affair with an employee), it was another GE alum—James McNerney—who came in from the outside to replace him.
As the aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia recently told me, “You had this weird combination of a distant building with a few hundred people in it and a non-engineer with no technical skills whatsoever at the helm.”
My late father used to complain bitterly when a formerly good restaurant became a mediocre one through cost-cutting. “When the bean-counters get control, it’s all over.” As especially striking observation, since my father was an accountant…
Remember back when President Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Northern Syria, and Democrats not only told us this was The Worst Thing In The World (at least until the next Worst Thing In The World) and would inevitably lead to Turkish genocide against the Syrian Kurds?
Given that the mainstream media has largely stopped covering the conflict, that does not appear to be the case. In announcing the withdrawal, President Donald Trump announced that Turkey’s intention was to set up a 20 mile buffer zone in Syria against Kurdish PKK terrorists that operated among the larger YPG/SDF forces there. Looking at a map of Syria today, more than a month into the incursion, that appears to be largely what they’ve done.
This doesn’t mean that things there are all hunky dory, or that it won’t change, or that the incursion was justified, or that Recep Tayyip Erdogan isn’t a power-hungry jihadist scumbag. It just means that when Turkey announced that their objectives in the incursion were just that 20 mile buffer strip, they may not have been lying. All this adds up to considerably less than the genocide Democrats and their MSM allies foretold.
And that’s why we’ve ceased to hear much about the Turkish incursion in Syria: the issue can no longer be used to bash President Trump, so it’s no longer “useful” to report on it…
I’ve successfully managed to post the clown car update every Monday since January, but today is going to break the string thanks to a task that took up several hours on Sunday. But tomorrow should still see a one-day late Clown Car Update, so the weekly streak will continue.
Instead, enjoy a handful of tweets on more-or-less the same subject:
Just so we're clear Joe Biden skipped the California Democratic Convention, including a univision forum, so he could go to Vegas and call marijuana a gateway drug. https://t.co/V00ctNKGnp
Per @ForecasterEnten, this seems pretty significant in Iowa. 38% of Democratic caucus-goers think Warren is too liberal, up from 23% this spring. (Just 4% say she's too conservative.) And Iowa caucusgoers are a pretty darn liberal bunch! https://t.co/pDI44clAPApic.twitter.com/KVYY1WCiC1
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg lied about black Americans endorsing him and literally used fake photos from Kenya to prove it … meanwhile I have Democrats in my mentions claiming the parties magically switched places. LOL
