Bashing Bain

The New Neo Posted on by

Deval Patrick has entered the Democratic race, and John Hinderaker writes:

…[I]t is worth noting that Patrick resigned from Bain Capital the day before he announced.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with working for Bain; it is a perfectly good company. But remember the abuse that the Democrats heaped on Mitt Romney for running Bain Capital? He was a “vulture capitalist.” He caused one woman to die of cancer. He fired many more from their jobs. (Never mind the jobs Bain both created and preserved.) We see revealed here the utter cynicism of the Democratic Party. The leaders of that party don’t mean the things they say. They knew their attacks on Bain Capital were stupid, they just didn’t care. Just as they do not, more generally, believe their own demagoguery of Wall Street, when in fact, Wall Street has been among their biggest financial supporters.

True.

As far as it goes, that is – but it doesn’t go quite far enough. I remember the Democratic attacks on Romney regarding Bain, and I also remember that similar attacks originally came from Romney’s Republican rivals for the nomination, in particular Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry as well as some of their supporters and defenders.

I remember it because it was a battle fought on this blog, as well. There are many things to criticize about Romney, both then and especially now, but his work at Bain isn’t one of them, IMHO. If you want to see what I’m talking about, go here and read both the post and the comments. Here’s an excerpt from the post:

…[T]he Gingrich/Perry v Romney/Bain business has fascinated me far more than I expected it would, and much more than the usual campaign imbroglio. I think the reason is that it conjures up a host of deeper issues to ponder—about capitalism and free enterprise in general, and about the business of finance and how that fits into the mix.

So I may come out with quite a few posts related to this before it’s done. Not that I expect it to be done all that soon. And even if the Republicans start leaving the topic alone (which I doubt), the Democrats will be sure to pick it up if Romney is nominated. Of that you can be certain, if you can be certain of anything at all in this election.

And that turned out to be quite correct, as you can see from this. As I wrote in that post:

Politics can be (and often is) a vicious slugfest full of distortions and even outright lies about the opponent…These lies and distortions are the problem, not the subject matter itself (be it Wright or Bain), and it’s the function of the press to set us straight with the truth, although much of the MSM abdicated that effort long ago and joined in the mendacious festivities.

That was written in 2012, and it’s only gotten worse since then.

[NOTE: Let me add that I would amend this by saying that one of the functions of the press is to present the truth as best and as objectively as it can be determined. And if they’re not going to be objective, at least be truthful about their biases and own up to them openly.]

More black people are discovering they’re actually Republicans

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: Artfldgr]

Here’s an interesting interview with two black women explaining how they realized they were actually Republicans. It takes a particular kind of courage:

Parker: Well, I came to believe what I believe by reading a proverb a day. I was believing the lies of the left for a very long time. I believed all that we even hear today, that my problems were somebody else’s fault. That America was racist and I shouldn’t mainstream. That I was poor because others were wealthy…

Look, the polls have been showing forever that a third of African Americans say publicly that they’re evangelical and conservative. A third. This has been 25 years. This is Republicans’ fault they don’t have more…

Then we had a war on poverty [in the Sixties] that basically said, “Don’t think about any natural consequences that come from these decisions you’re now making without religion and without family, because we have safety nets.” Over time, those safety nets evolved into three rules: Don’t work, don’t save, don’t get married, and we’ll keep you addicted to a government …

…Don’t get married, and now we’ll keep you enslaved to our poverty plantation…

In the ’60s, black marital rates were at 70%. Today, they’re at 30%. You can’t have 30% of your adult population married and wonder why your kids don’t know what to do.

It’ a long double interview, and there’s much much more. But here are some excerpts from the answers of the other woman interviewed:

Sears: Well, I am a Marine and I had had my last child, my husband and I, and we were living in California at the time. It was right around the time of the election and George Bush Sr., he was running, he was a candidate and I was still a Democrat. I’m black …

…I’m black, I’m supposed to be a Democrat. It rhymes, OK. The whole family’s full of Democrats, so what am I? I am what I am. [Mike] Dukakis, his commercial came on and he said, “I’m going to expand welfare. I’m going to make sure that this, that, the other, we’re going to give you money and we’re going to… ” I thought, “But if that happens, my folks, they’re just going to be living on what they get. There’s nothing to propel them.” Then he said, “For abortion, I’m going to make sure abortion is this and legal and expanded and do this and public monies and public…” I had just had my baby and I thought, “Well, I don’t believe that.”

Then right behind him came George Bush Sr. with his commercial, and he said, “If all you have is welfare, is what the government gives you, you will never have anything to pass onto your children.” Then he said, “As for abortion, I’m going to try and make it less and less and less.” Then I said, “Oh my God, I’m a Republican.”…

The next thing was, “How am I going to tell my family?” Because it’s almost as if I was changing my religion. It was a shock to me and I think to many black people; they really are Republicans because we are the most conservative, really, group. It’s just a matter of me getting in there and people like Star and everybody else getting in and saying, “Let us be who we want to be. You don’t get to tell me how to run my politics and I don’t get to tell you either. Just let us be free.”

That’s also the message of Kanye West and Candace Owens. And it’s a message that strikes the greatest fear into the hearts of the left. The left depends heavily on the monolithic support of black voters in order to win elections. Without it, they would be far less likely to get elected, and they know it. Even a small percentage of black voters hearing the message from Parker and Sears and West and Owens would have large repercussions, and Trump has made it quite clear that this is one of his goals.

Impeachment can be preventive…

The New Neo Posted on by

…says AOC:

Ocasio-Cortez said on CNN’s Situation Room that House Democrats need to move quickly, citing the “potential compromise of the 2020 elections,” that could lead to “a potentially disastrous outcome.”

“This is not just about something that has occurred, this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year,” she said.

What a great idea, like so many of her ideas.

Nothing the Framers would object to, either. And AOC is just the person to decide when and on whom it should be used.

Professor Jacobson: on students and free speech

The New Neo Posted on by

Professor William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection has been doing tremendous work promoting free speech. Two years ago he spoke at Vassar on the subject, amidst turmoil from activists spreading lies about him and seeking to silence him.

Recently he reflected on that experience, and what he has to say may surprise you [emphasis mine]:

So we were in what I think is the largest classroom there, lecture hall…It was over capacity, students overflowing into the hallways. So we probably had close to 300 students, and as soon as I started speaking, they realized, I think, they’d been had, that I was not who I was portrayed to be.

I spent 45 minutes with a basic lecture about the First Amendment, the history, why it’s important, why historically it’s actually protected left-wing speech, that the anti-war movement and the other movements could not have developed if not for the protections.

…And then I went through the rest of the Bill of Rights and I went through each of the rights of the Bill of Rights and I said, “While they may not technically apply here on campus, I’m sure you don’t want the college administration to take your stuff without some process by which you could contest it, some due process.” I said, “You don’t want to give up that right here.”…

I went through all of these and I said, “Why is it you want all of these rights in the Bill of Rights on this campus, even if it technically doesn’t apply, but the one right you’re so willing and eager to give up are your free speech rights?” I said, “Why is that?” I said, “Maybe it’s because on this campus, you have power and therefore your speech is not going to be stifled. But go outside those gates and guess what? That’s Trump country, and you wonder why the nation—or at least half the nation—voted that way even though you don’t know anybody who voted for him.”

I said, “So if you give up First Amendment rights on this campus and you are willing to suppress speech on this campus, you have no right to complain if somebody does it to you beyond the fence and beyond the gate.”

It was a great 45 minutes, no interruptions, although they came ready for a fight…and then we had question-and-answer. [An] hour and 15 minutes, the students lined up to ask [questions], including someone dressed in black. There were mostly good questions. I mean, I think questions that reflected that they’d never really had to think about these things before, but they were, let’s say, good-faith questions.

…it was one of the best nights I’ve ever had on a campus.

One thing it taught me is that there is a hunger out there on behalf of students to learn about what you would think are basic civic lessons that they’ve never had. And they’ve never had anybody explain it to them, and why it’s important, and why even allowing speech you consider offensive is really important.

Our educational system has become a complete failure in terms of giving students the truth and the foundations for this country’s system. But that’s no accident; the trashing was intentional.

Hillary Clinton: “I think about what kind of president I would have been all the time”

The New Neo Posted on by

In an interview with the BBC, Hillary Clinton said this:

“I think about what kind of president I would have been all the time…How, obviously, I would have been different. How I think I would have been a better, more successful president…”

Hillary is not alone. The right thinks quite often about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been like, and 99.9999% of them are ecstatically happy that it never came to pass, and hope to continue that fortunate streak.

Her supporters probably think about it even more, grinding their teeth in woe and sympathy for her and for the country at its enormous loss.

Hillary went on:

“And I think about the presidential campaign of 2016. I thought I was as gutsy as I could be, but I probably could have been gutsier — if I figured out a way to reveal what was happening in a more effective way.”

“You know when we talked about how the Russians were behind the theft of material, a lot of people thought, ‘What are they talking about?’ They just dismissed us in both the public and the press…”

Again with the Russia, Russia, Russia. And again with the “we just didn’t communicate well enough,” which was an ongoing refrain of the Obama administration whenever anything went wrong. Everything was a framing problem, a narrative problem, and so every solution was to tweak the message.

I think Clinton is polling madly to see what her chances might be in 2020. She doesn’t want another laborious run with an ignominious ending. She’d rather carp and blame.

[NOTE: This is a small point of grammar, but Hillary should have put the “all the time” after “I think,” as in: “I think all the time about what kind of president I would have been.”]

Here’s a thread for the latest act of the impeachment theater

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s a long-running play.

I’m not watching today’s show. I will be attempting to keep up with it periodically, but I’ve got a busy day otherwise. Here’s a thread to discuss the hearings and the entire misbegotten mess.

So far—

Fancy that:

George Kent, a diplomat in the State Department, testified that America has always placed conditions on all loans to Ukraine:

“There are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine. Conditions include anti-corruption reforms, as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. The International Monetary Fund does the same thing. Congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.”…

Kent, a diplomat in the State Department, noted that in 2015, he raised concerns to then-Vice President Joe Biden when Hunter, his son, had was named to a position on the board of the natural gas firm. The elder Biden was acting as the chief diplomat to Ukraine at the time.

Anyone with a modicum of sense realizes that the US always can attach such conditions, and that Hunter Biden’s appointment was problematic. I can’t remember when I first heard about Biden’s involvement, but it was long before the brouhaha over the Trump phone call.

But of course, what’s standard and unquestionably allowed every other president is not allowed Trump.

More here.

Also, on the topic of the supposed quid pro quo:

During the first day of public impeachment hearings, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor whether there was any “linkage” of security assistance dollars to investigating Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian company where Joe Biden’s son Hunter served on the board despite not having any experience in the industry. Taylor testified that he met three times with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and that there was “no linkage” of these issues in any of those meetings…

…”to my knowledge, Ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until the 29th of August,” Taylor said. “The third meeting that you mentioned with the senators… there was discussion of the security assistance… but there was not discussion of linkage.”

Right there, should be a slam-dunk case for dismissal of the entire sorry charade. But that won’t happen.

Whither Comey?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s today’s rumor about IG Horowitz’s report:

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s much anticipated report on his investigation into the FBI’s probe into President Trump’s campaign is expected to be made public before Thanksgiving and the outcome is alleged to contain several criminal referrals, according to sources who spoke with SaraACarter.com…

According to several sources the report will be ‘damning’ and will allegedly contain criminal referrals on former FBI officials. The report will apparently have at least two criminal referrals, said two sources, with knowledge. One of those criminal referrals is expected to be Comey. However, the Inspector General’s office has not been providing comments on the report.

Grain of salt duly taken. And of course, even if there’s a criminal referral for Comey, that doesn’t mean Barr will prosecute.

Here’s my other thought: if there is a criminal referral and Barr does prosecute, will that change any minds? After all, Sara Carter also reports:

“If it’s strong and comes out soon, the IG report will do some real damage to the Democrats’ impeachment charade. It would show that Resistance bureaucrats really are conspiring to take down Trump,” said a House Republican source. “It would also fatally undermine the credibility of Schiff, who argued vehemently that there were no FISA abuses—it will mean that, as Intel Committee Chairman, he’s ignoring severe abuses for purely political purposes.”

In a logical world, that would be the case. But the world doesn’t necessarily work that way. My own cynicism suggests that, if Comey is prosecuted, all of Trump’s opponents will call it vengeance on the part of Trump and will consider it merely another reason to impeach him.

Meet San Francisco’s new DA: Chesa Boudin, the ultimate red diaper baby

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s not as though any of the choices for San Francisco DA were conservatives or even close to it. But of all the far leftist candidates for San Francisco DA, winner Chesa Boudin was the most leftist of them all, a sort of leftist’s leftist.

His margin of victory was small, but he’s got big plans:

“The people of San Francisco have sent a powerful and clear message,” Boudin said in a statement. “It’s time for radical change to how we envision justice. I’m humbled to be a part of this movement that is unwavering in its demand for transformation.”…

Boudin, a public defender and former translator for the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s administration, ran on a progressive platform of criminal justice reform, including the elimination of cash bail, ending mass incarceration, and eliminating racial bias in the criminal justice system. Boudin also said he would demand the police be held accountable for police brutality.

The San Francisco Police Officers Association responded by spending $600,000 to launch attack ads calling Boudin “the number one choice of criminals and gang members,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Boudin’s candidacy and election is no accident whatsoever. It is part of an extremely organized movement to get leftist radicals into such positions in cities and even states around the US, funded in part by George Soros’ deep pockets. Michelle Malkin discusses that and more in this piece on Chesa Boudin and others who are part of this push:

Boudin is the top fundraiser in the San Francisco DA’s race, raking in more than $623,000 in donations this year — a significant chunk from out-of-state academics, entertainment industry executives, and East Coast lawyers in New York and D.C. I discovered from Boudin’s most recent campaign finance disclosures that one of his top donors is Chloe Cockburn. She is a prominent partner of globalist billionaire George Soros’ Democracy Alliance. Cockburn moderated a crucial 2017 summit with Soros and other deep-pocketed liberal philanthropists to strategize on taking over local and state offices to reclaim “our progressive future.” Other bigwig Boudin donors hail from the Soros-allied Tides Foundation and Soros-funded Brennan Center for Justice.

When I read Boudin’s name I immediately recognized his provenance; I’d heard of him before. Boudin is the son of leftist self-styled “revolutionaries” Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, who were convicted in the murders of one guard and two police officers in the 1981 Brinks robbery. You can read about his parents’ crime here, and make sure you study the violent details so that when you read some of the other links that mention it you understand how brutal it really was. Gilbert is still in prison all these years later, but Kathy Boudin has gone on to a position at Gilbert’s alma mater, Columbia, as I wrote about previously here:

I have been unable to find anything to indicate what might be called “repentance” on Boudin’s part; neither has John Hinderaker of Powerline. And indeed, there’s absolutely no reason to think she has any regrets about what she did. Boudin comes from a long line of prominent leftists (and especially lawyers), and although the rest of them don’t seem to have been terrorists, in her politics she’s really just been following the family business.

So Chesa himself is just following the family business as well, with a little (actually a lot of) help from his friends and donors. Just to round things out, since he was a mere 14 months when his parents committed their crime, he was raised by none other than Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who have also found cozy homes in academia (in Dohrn’s case in the field of law, and in Ayers’ case educational “reform”).

Chesa’s parents were impatient revolutionaries involved in violence. If you have the stomach for it, you can read a 1985 interview with dad here; it’s typical self-justifying leftist tripe. But Chesa Boudin has been made aware (as has his mother and his surrogate parents) that a better way to accomplish what his parents attempted is the slower Gramscian march through the institutions which has been progressing (pun intended) quite nicely lately.

Chesa has impeccable academic credentials – Oxford, Rhodes scholar, Yale Law School – and he was a translator and propagandist for that wonderful guy, Hugo Chavez. Now he hopes to bring his helpful skills to San Francisco. Chesa Boudin says:

Growing up in that household, he was immersed in the world of leftist politics and groomed to be an overachiever: Yale. Rhodes Scholar. Yale Law School. “I lived in parallel worlds,” he once wrote. “My family taught me radical politics from the beginning, but I also learned to prove myself in elite institutions.”

That’s what makes a man like Chesa Boudin so dangerous: he’s polished, smart, and patient. Here are just a few of Boudin’s plans: protect illegal immigrants from deportation who have committed other crimes, and go after ICE:

The Immigration Unit proposed by candidate Chesa Boudin would work to assure that defendants are not offered plea deals that have unintended consequences on their immigration status…

The unit would translate complicated immigration law for prosecutors. In many cases, immigrants who commit certain crimes can be convicted of comparable charges that still result in punishment but do not impact their status in the country, Boudin said.

For instance, Boudin said an immigrant accused of drug dealing could be offered a felony plea for being an accessory after the fact rather than possession with the intent to sell, which carries with it “drastic” immigration consequences.

Protecting immigrants from deportation is just one aspect of the proposed unit that Boudin plans to announce Wednesday. Boudin said the unit would also be tasked with investigating and prosecuting “illegal tactics” by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“There are lots of situations in San Francisco where ICE is making arrests,” Boudin said. “We know it’s racist, we know it’s targeting immigrants, and unfortunately right now no one in the DA’s office has the resources or the mandate to investigate those interactions.”

Boudin said he might consider ICE making good on President Donald Trump’s threat to transport undocumented immigrants from the border to San Francisco “human trafficking” or “kidnapping,” for instance.

As I said before, it’s not as though any of Boudin’s rival candidates were much better, either.

[NOTE: Here’s a note on the fate of Joseph Trombino, one of the Brink’s guards wounded in the 1981 robbery, who lived twenty more years only to die in the 9/11 attacks.]

[NOTE II: And expect to see a lot more public urination in San Francisco. Hey, there can never be enough public urination, right?

If you don’t prosecute “quality of life” crimes, it stands to reason that quality of life will decline.

Related.]

Jet Blue is all excited about its new fare structure

The New Neo Posted on by

I got one of those “We’re so excited to be able to offer you something new and we’re sure you’ll love because it’s so fabulous!” emails today. It’s from Jet Blue, and they’re announcing a new and more complicated fare structure (not available on all flights) which they just about guarantee you’ll love, love, love.

You need a lawyer to figure it out, as happens with so many of today’s “deals.” But I spent some time studying it, and I’ve concluded that it’s the usual. They tout the fact that they offer small and relatively meaningless perks, many of which most of their competitors offer – FREE brand-name snacks, FREE carry-on, whoopdeedoo! – and take something away in the bargain.

Just as an example (and I don’t want to get too deep into the weeds with this, because it’s not worth it), starting today their very lowest fare category involves forfeiting the entire fare if you cancel or change, even if you’re a member of their elusive frequent flier club Mosaic. But you know what? The next higher-up fares, which have change fees, are actually not much better because until you get above a one-way $200-and-up fare, the change fees are nearly as much as the fares themselves.

And so on and so forth.

And believe me, I’m not picking on Jet Blue, which is a good airline in my book. It’s everywhere and it’s everything.

“Okay, Boomer,” I say to myself.

Farage’s Brexit Party will not block Johnson’s Conervatives in coming UK election

The New Neo Posted on by

This is potentially big news:

In a massive boost to Prime Minister Boris Johnson-led British Conservatives, Nigel Farage has pulled hundreds of Brexit Party candidates ahead of the December 12 election. The Brexit Party will not field candidates in all 317 seats that the ruling Conservative party won in the last general election.

“The Brexit party will not contest the 317 seats the Conservatives won at the last election,” Farage said. “We will concentrate our total effort into all the seats that are held by the Labour party, who have completely broken their manifesto pledge in 2017 to respect the result of the referendum, and we will also take on the rest of the remainer parties. We will stand up and fight them all.”

The Brexit Party had the potential of costing Prime Minister Johnson the election, a “wargaming” simulation conducted by the Daily Telegraph concluded on Monday. The newspaper predicted, “Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party could decide [the] election by denying Conservatives 90 extra seats.”

So that’s got to be good for Johnson and the Brexit forces. But here’s my question: why doesn’t Johnson pull out of the contests for the seats Conservatives don’t presently hold? Isn’t there still a good possibility that the Brexit candidates and the Conservative candidates in those districts will split the pro-Brexit vote and allow a Labour candidate to win those particular seats?