Hedge fund Billionaire Bill Ackman targets Harvard's Claudine Gay in controversial campaign

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4vY_t6JxZU&ab_channel=WION 

 

Hedge fund Billionaire Bill Ackman targets Harvard's Claudine Gay in controversial campaign | WION

WION

3,415 views Jan 4, 2024 

Billionaire hedge-fund manager Bill Ackman has ignited a political storm with his accusations of anti-Semitism and plagiarism against Claudine Gay, Harvard's first Black president. Known for founding Pershing Square Capital Management, Ackman's high-profile financial manoeuvres have seen both significant gains and losses. His recent alignment with conservative groups has sparked criticism and accusations of racial bias in his campaign against Gay. #claudinegay #billackman #gravitas 

 

About Channel: WION The World is One News examines global issues with in-depth analysis. We provide much more than the news of the day. Our aim is to empower people to explore their world. With our Global headquarters in New Delhi, we bring you news on the hour, by the hour. We deliver information that is not biased. We are journalists who are neutral to the core and non-partisan when it comes to world politics. People are tired of biased reportage and we stand for a globalized united world. So for us, the World is truly One.

Please keep discussions on this channel clean and respectful and refrain from using racist or sexist slurs and personal insults. 

Subscribe to our channel at https://goo.gl/JfY3NI 

Check out our website: http://www.wionews.com 

Join our WhatsApp Channel: https://bit.ly/455YOQ0 

Connect with us on our social media handles: 

Facebook:   / wionews   

Twitter:   / wionews  

30 Comments

@davidamos7114

Hmmm 

 

https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1742441534627184760 

 

@BillAckman

In light of today’s news, I thought I would try to take a step back and provide perspective on what this is really all about. I first became concerned about @Harvard when 34 Harvard student organizations, early on the morning of October 8th before Israel had taken any military actions in Gaza, came out publicly in support of Hamas, a globally recognized terrorist organization, holding Israel ‘solely responsible’ for Hamas’ barbaric and heinous acts.

How could this be? I wondered.

When I saw President Gay’s initial statement about the massacre, it provided more context (!) for the student groups’ statement of support for terrorism. The protests began as pro-Palestine and then became anti-Israel.  Shortly, thereafter, antisemitism exploded on campus as protesters who violated Harvard’s own codes of conduct were emboldened by the lack of enforcement of Harvard’s rules, and kept testing the limits on how aggressive, intimidating, and disruptive they could be to Jewish and Israeli students, and the student body at large. Sadly, antisemitism remains a simmering source of hate even at our best universities among a subset of students.

A few weeks later, I went up to campus to see things with my own eyes, and listen and learn from students and faculty. I met with 15 or so members of the faculty and a few hundred students in small and large settings, and a clearer picture began to emerge.

I ultimately concluded that antisemitism was not the core of the problem, it was simply a troubling warning sign – it was the “canary in the coal mine” – despite how destructive it was in impacting student life and learning on campus.  

I came to learn that the root cause of antisemitism at Harvard was an ideology that had been promulgated on campus, an oppressor/oppressed framework, that provided the intellectual bulwark behind the protests, helping to generate anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate speech and harassment.

Then I did more research. The more I learned, the more concerned I became, and the more ignorant I realized I had been about DEI, a powerful movement that has not only pervaded Harvard, but the educational system at large. I came to understand that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was not what I had naively thought these words meant.

I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing, and more.

What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.

Under DEI, one’s degree of oppression is determined based upon where one resides on a so-called intersectional pyramid of oppression where whites, Jews, and Asians are deemed oppressors, and a subset of people of color, LGBTQ people, and/or women are deemed to be oppressed. Under this ideology which is the philosophical underpinning of DEI as advanced by Ibram X. Kendi and others, one is either an anti-racist or a racist. There is no such thing as being “not racist.”

Under DEI’s ideology, any policy, program, educational system, economic system, grading system, admission policy, (and even climate change due its disparate impact on geographies and the people that live there), etc. that leads to unequal outcomes among people of different skin colors is deemed racist.

As a result, according to DEI, capitalism is racist, Advanced Placement exams are racist, IQ tests are racist, corporations are racist, or in other words, any merit-based program, system, or organization which has or generates outcomes for different races that are at variance with the proportion these different races represent in the population at large is by definition racist under DEI’s ideology.

In order to be deemed anti-racist, one must personally take action to reverse any unequal outcomes in society. The DEI movement, which has permeated many universities, corporations, and state, local and federal governments, is designed to be the anti-racist engine to transform society from its currently structurally racist state to an anti-racist one.

After the death of George Floyd, the already burgeoning DEI movement took off without any real challenge to its problematic ideology. Why, you might ask, was there so little pushback? The answer is that anyone who dared to raise a question which challenged DEI was deemed a racist, a label which could severely impact one’s employment, social status, reputation and more. Being called a racist got people cancelled, so those concerned about DEI and its societal and legal implications had no choice but to keep quiet in this new climate of fear.

The techniques that DEI has used to squelch the opposition are found in the Red Scares and McCarthyism of decades past. If you challenge DEI, “justice” will be swift, and you may find yourself unemployed, shunned by colleagues, cancelled, and/or you will otherwise put your career and acceptance in society at risk.

The DEI movement has also taken control of speech. Certain speech is no longer permitted. So-called “microaggressions” are treated like hate speech. “Trigger warnings” are required to protect students. “Safe spaces” are necessary to protect students from the trauma inflicted by words that are challenging to the students’ newly-acquired world views. Campus speakers and faculty with unapproved views are shouted down, shunned, and cancelled.

These speech codes have led to self-censorship by students and faculty of views privately held, but no longer shared. There is no commitment to free expression at Harvard other than for DEI-approved views. This has led to the quashing of conservative and other viewpoints from the Harvard campus and faculty, and contributed to Harvard’s having the lowest free speech ranking of 248 universities assessed by the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression.

When one examines DEI and its ideological heritage, it does not take long to understand that the movement is inherently inconsistent with basic American values. Our country since its founding has been about creating and building a democracy with equality of opportunity for all. Millions of people have left behind socialism and communism to come to America to start again, as they have seen the destruction leveled by an equality of outcome society.

The E for “equity” in DEI is about equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

DEI is racist because reverse racism is racism, even if it is against white people (and it is remarkable that I even need to point this out). Racism against white people has become considered acceptable by many not to be racism, or alternatively, it is deemed acceptable racism. While this is, of course, absurd, it has become the prevailing view in many universities around the country.

You can say things about white people today in universities, in business or otherwise, that if you switched the word ‘white’ to ‘black,’ the consequences to you would be costly and severe.

To state what should otherwise be self-evident, whether or not a statement is racist should not depend upon whether the target of the racism is a group who currently represents a majority or minority of the country or those who have a lighter or darker skin color. Racism against whites is as reprehensible as it is against groups with darker skin colors.

Martin Luther King’s most famous words are instructive:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

But here we are in 2024, being asked and in some cases required to use skin color to effect outcomes in admissions (recently deemed illegal by the Supreme Court), in business (likely illegal yet it happens nonetheless) and in government (also I believe in most cases to be illegal, except apparently in government contracting), rather than the content of one’s character. As such, a meritocracy is an anathema to the DEI movement. DEI is inherently a racist and illegal movement in its implementation even if it purports to work on behalf of the so-called oppressed.

And DEI’s definition of oppressed is fundamentally flawed.

I have always believed that the most fortunate should help the least fortunate, and that our system should be designed in such a way as to maximize the size of the overall pie so that it will enable us to provide an economic system which can offer quality of life, education, housing, and healthcare for all.

America is a rich country and we have made massive progress over the decades toward achieving this goal, but we obviously have much more work to do. Steps taken on the path to socialism – another word for an equality of outcome system – will reverse this progress and ultimately impoverish us all. We have seen this movie many times.

Having a darker skin color, a less common sexual identity, and/or being a woman doesn’t make one necessarily oppressed or even disadvantaged. While slavery remains a permanent stain on our country’s history – a fact which is used by DEI to label white people as oppressors – it doesn’t therefore hold that all white people generations after the abolishment of slavery should be held responsible for its evils. Similarly, the fact that Columbus discovered America doesn’t make all modern-day Italians colonialists.

An ideology that portrays a bicameral world of oppressors and the oppressed based principally on race or sexual identity is a fundamentally racist ideology that will likely lead to more racism rather than less. A system where one obtains advantages by virtue of one’s skin color is a racist system, and one that will generate resentment and anger among the un-advantaged who will direct their anger at the favored groups.

The country has seen burgeoning resentment and anger grow materially over the last few years, and the DEI movement is an important contributor to our growing divisiveness. Resentment is one of the most important drivers of racism. And it is the lack of equity, i.e, fairness, in how DEI operates, that contributes to this resentment.

I was accused of being a racist from the President of the NAACP among others when I posted on @X
 that I had learned that the Harvard President search process excluded candidates that did not meet the DEI criteria. I didn’t say that former President Gay was hired because she was a black woman. I simply said that I had heard that the search process by its design excluded a large percentage of potential candidates due to the DEI limitations. My statement was not a racist one. It was simply the empirical truth about the Harvard search process that led to Gay’s hiring.

When former President Gay was hired, I knew little about her, but I was instinctually happy for Harvard and the black community. Every minority community likes to see their representatives recognized in important leadership positions, and it is therefore an important moment for celebration. I too celebrated this achievement.  I am inspired and moved by others’ success, and I thought of Gay’s hiring at the pinnacle leadership position at perhaps our most important and iconic university as an important and significant milestone for the black community.

I have spent the majority of my life advocating on behalf of and supporting members of disadvantaged communities including by investing several hundreds of millions of dollars of philanthropic assets to help communities in need with economic development, sensible criminal justice reform, poverty reduction, healthcare, education, workforce housing, charter schools, and more.

I have done the same at Pershing Square Capital Management when, for example, we completed one of the largest IPOs ever with the substantive assistance of a number of minority-owned, women-owned, and Veteran-owned investment banks. Prior to the Pershing Square Tontine, Ltd. IPO, it was standard practice for big corporations occasionally to name a few minority-owned banks in their equity and bond offerings, have these banks do no work and sell only a de minimis amount of stock or bonds, and allocate to them only 1% or less of the underwriting fees so that the issuers could virtue signal that they were helping minority communities.

In our IPO, we invited the smaller banks into the deal from the beginning of the process so they could add real value. As a result, the Tontine IPO was one of the largest and most successful IPOs in history with $12 billion of demand for a $4 billion deal by the second day of the IPO, when we closed the books. The small banks earned their 20% share of the fees for delivering real and substantive value and for selling their share of the stock.

Compare this approach to the traditional one where the small banks do effectively nothing to earn their fees – they aren’t given that opportunity – yet, they get a cut of the deal, albeit a tiny one. The traditional approach does not create value for anyone. It only creates resentment, and an uncomfortable feeling from the small banks who get a tiny piece of the deal in a particularly bad form of affirmative action.

While I don’t think our approach to working with the smaller banks has yet achieved the significant traction it deserves, it will hopefully happen eventually as the smaller banks build their competencies and continue to earn their fees, and other issuers see the merit of this approach. We are going to need assistance with a large IPO soon so we are looking forward to working with our favored smaller banks.

I have always believed in giving disadvantaged groups a helping hand. I signed the Giving Pledge for this reason. My life plan by the time I was 18 was to be successful and then return the favor to those less fortunate. This always seemed to the right thing to do, in particular, for someone as fortunate as I am.

All of the above said, it is one thing to give disadvantaged people the opportunities and resources so that they can help themselves. It is another to select a candidate for admission or for a leadership role when they are not qualified to serve in that role.

This appears to have been the case with former President Gay’s selection. She did not possess the leadership skills to serve as Harvard’s president, putting aside any questions about her academic credentials. This became apparent shortly after October 7th, but there were many signs before then when she was Dean of the faculty.

The result was a disaster for Harvard and for Claudine Gay.

The Harvard board should not have run a search process which had a predetermined objective of only hiring a DEI-approved candidate. In any case, there are many incredibly talented black men and women who could have been selected by Harvard to serve as its president so why did the Harvard Corporation board choose Gay?

One can only speculate without knowing all of the facts, but it appears Gay’s leadership in the creation of Harvard’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging and the penetration of the DEI ideology into the Corporation board room perhaps made Gay the favored candidate.  The search was also done at a time when many other top universities had similar DEI-favored candidate searches underway for their presidents, reducing the number of potential candidates available in light of the increased competition for talent.

Unrelated to the DEI issue, as a side note, I would suggest that universities should broaden their searches to include capable business people for the role of president, as a university president requires more business skills than can be gleaned from even the most successful academic career with its hundreds of peer reviewed papers and many books. Universities have a Dean of the Faculty and a bureaucracy to oversee the faculty and academic environment of the university.  It therefore does not make sense that the university president has to come through the ranks of academia, with a skill set unprepared for university management.

The president’s job – managing thousands of employees, overseeing a $50 billion endowment, raising money, managing expenses, capital allocation, real estate acquisition, disposition, and construction, and reputation management – are responsibilities that few career academics are capable of executing. Broadening the recruitment of candidates to include top business executives would also create more opportunities for diverse talent for the office of the university president.

Furthermore, Harvard is a massive business that has been mismanaged for a long time. The cost structure of the University is out of control due in large part to the fact that the administration has grown without bounds. Revenues are below what they should be because the endowment has generated a 4.5% annualized return for the last decade in one of the greatest bull markets in history, and that low return is not due to the endowment taking lower risks as the substantial majority of its assets are invested in illiquid and other high-risk assets.

The price of the product, a Harvard education, has risen at a rate well in excess of inflation for decades, (I believe it has grown about 7-8% per annum) and it is now about $320,000 for four years of a liberal arts education at Harvard College. As a result, the only students who can now afford Harvard come from rich families and poor ones. The middle class can’t get enough financial aid other than by borrowing a lot of money, and it is hard to make the economics work in life after college when you graduate with large loan balances, particularly if you also attend graduate school.

The best companies in the world grow at high rates over many decades. Harvard has grown at a de minimis rate. Since I graduated 35 years ago, the number of students in the Harvard class has grown by less than 20%. What other successful business do you know that has grown the number of customers it serves by less than 20% in 35 years, and where nearly all revenue growth has come from raising prices?

In summary, there is a lot more work to be done to fix Harvard than just replacing its president. That said, the selection of Harvard’s next president is a critically important task, and the individuals principally responsible for that decision do not have a good track record for doing so based on their recent history, nor have they done a good job managing the other problems which I have identified above.

The Corporation board led by Penny Pritzker selected the wrong president and did inadequate due diligence about her academic record despite Gay being in leadership roles at the University since 2015 when she became dean of the Social Studies department.

The Board failed to create a discrimination-free environment on campus exposing the University to tremendous reputational damage, to large legal and financial liabilities, Congressional investigations and scrutiny, and to the potential loss of Federal funding, all while damaging the learning environment for all students.

And when concerns were raised about plagiarism in Gay’s research, the Board said these claims were “demonstrably false” and it threatened the NY Post with “immense” liability if it published a story raising these issues.

It was only after getting the story cancelled that the Board secretly launched a cursory, short-form investigation outside of the proper process for evaluating a member of the faculty’s potential plagiarism. When the Board finally publicly acknowledged some of Gay’s plagiarism, it characterized the plagiarism as “unintentional” and invented new euphemisms, i.e., “duplicative language” to describe plagiarism, a belittling of academic integrity that has caused grave damage to Harvard’s academic standards and credibility.

The Board’s three-person panel of “political scientist experts” that to this day remain unnamed who evaluated Gay’s work failed to identify many examples of her plagiarism, leading to even greater reputational damage to the University and its reputation for academic integrity as the whistleblower and the media continued to identify additional problems with Gay’s work in the days and weeks thereafter.

According to the NY Post, the Board also apparently sought to identify the whistleblower and seek retribution against him or her in contravention to the University’s whistleblower protection policies.

Despite all of the above, the Board “unanimously” gave its full support for Gay during this nearly four-month crisis, until eventually being forced to accept her resignation earlier today, a grave and continuing reputational disaster to Harvard and to the Board.

In a normal corporate context with the above set of facts, the full board would resign immediately to be replaced by a group nominated by shareholders. In the case of Harvard, however, the Board nominates itself and its new members. There is no shareholder vote mechanism to replace them.

So what should happen?

The Corporation Board should not remain in their seats protected by the unusual governance structure which enabled them to obtain their seats.

The Board Chair, Penny Pritzker, should resign along with the other members of the board who led the campaign to keep Claudine Gay, orchestrated the strategy to threaten the media, bypassed the process for evaluating plagiarism, and otherwise greatly contributed to the damage that has been done. Then new Corporation board members should be identified who bring true diversity, viewpoint and otherwise, to the board.

The Board should not be principally comprised of individuals who share the same politics and views about DEI. The new board members should be chosen in a transparent process with the assistance of the 30-person Board of Overseers. There is no reason the Harvard board of 12 independent trustees cannot be comprised of the most impressive, high integrity, intellectually and politically diverse members of our country and globe. We have plenty of remarkable people to choose from, and the job of being a director just got much more interesting and important. It is no longer, nor should it ever have been, an honorary and highly political sinecure.

The ODEIB should be shut down, and the staff should be terminated. The ODEIB has already taken down much of the ideology and strategies that were on its website when I and others raised concerns about how the office operates and who it does and does not represent. Taking down portions of the website does not address the fundamentally flawed and racist ideology of this office, and calls into further question the ODEIB’s legitimacy.

Why would the ODEIB take down portions of its website when an alum questioned its legitimacy unless the office was doing something fundamentally wrong or indefensible?

Harvard must once again become a meritocratic institution which does not discriminate for or against faculty or students based on their skin color, and where diversity is understood in its broadest form so that students can learn in an environment which welcomes diverse viewpoints from faculty and students from truly diverse backgrounds and experiences.

Harvard must create an academic environment with real academic freedom and free speech, where self-censoring, speech codes, and cancel culture are forever banished from campus.  

Harvard should become an environment where all students of all persuasions feel comfortable expressing their views and being themselves. In the business world, we call this creating a great corporate culture, which begins with new leadership and the right tone at the top. It does not require the creation of a massive administrative bureaucracy.

These are the minimum changes necessary to begin to repair the damage that has been done.

A number of faculty at the University of Pennsylvania have proposed a new constitution which can be found at http://pennforward.com, which has been signed by more than 1,200 faculty from Penn, Harvard, and other universities. Harvard would do well to adopt Penn’s proposed new constitution or a similar one before seeking to hire its next president.

A condition of employment of the new Harvard president should be the requirement that the new president agrees to strictly abide by the new constitution. He or she should take an oath to that effect.

Today was an important step forward for the University.  It is time we restore Veritas to Harvard and again be an exemplar that graduates well-informed, highly-educated leaders of exemplary moral standing and good judgment who can help bring our country together, advance our democracy, and identify the important new discoveries that will help save us from ourselves.

We have a lot more work to do. Let’s get at it.

3:03 AM · Jan 3, 2024

·

34.3M

Views

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/persqfoundation/ 

 

The Pershing Square Foundation supports exceptional leaders and innovative organizations that tackle

Page · Nonprofit organization

787 11th Avenue, New York, NY, United States, New York

+1 212-286-0300

info@persq.org

pershingsquarefoundation.org

 

https://pershingsquarefoundation.org/people/bill-ackman/ 

 

 

CEO & Portfolio Manager, Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.

Bill Ackman is the CEO and Portfolio Manager of Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., an SEC registered investment adviser founded in 2003. Pershing Square is a concentrated research-intensive fundamental value investor in long and occasionally short investments in the public markets. Prior to forming Pershing Square, Mr. Ackman co-founded Gotham Partners Management Co., LLC, an investment adviser that managed public and private equity hedge fund portfolios. Prior to Gotham Partners, Mr. Ackman began his career in real estate investment banking at Ackman Brothers & Singer, Inc. Mr. Ackman received an MBA from the Harvard Business School and a Bachelor of Arts magna cum laude from Harvard College.

Mr. Ackman is Chairman of The Howard Hughes Corporation (NYSE:HHC) and a member of the board of Universal Music Group N.V. (NA:UMG). He serves as a member of the Investor Advisory Committee on Financial Markets for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and a member of the Board of Dean’s Advisors of the Harvard Business School.

https://twitter.com/deanbphillips?lang=en

https://www.dean24.com/contact

Phone

+1 (844) DEAN-USA

Email

hello@dean24.com

SQuie@Dean24.com

Mail

P.O. Box 741
Excelsior, MN 55331

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-challenger-dean-phillips-faces-fec-complaint-lodged-left-wing-group

 

Biden challenger Dean Phillips faces FEC complaint lodged by left-wing group

Watchdog group Campaign for Accountability alleges Democratic presidential candidate Dean Phillips' campaign improperly coordinated with a super PAC

 

By Chris Pandolfo Fox News

Published January 4, 2024 2:27pm EST

 

 

Video

Biden challenger Dean Phillips predicts he will 'surprise' people in New Hampshire primary

Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota, who is challenging President Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination, tells Fox News Digital he doesn’t have to win the New Hampshire primary, but says he’ll "surprise, and from there it’s game on."

A left-wing watchdog group has accused the presidential campaign of Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., of illegally coordinating with a super PAC.

Campaign for Accountability on Wednesday announced that it has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), demanding an investigation into Phillips' campaign, the super PAC Pass the Torch USA Inc. and former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt for alleged violations of federal election law.

The complaint alleges that Schmidt flouted election regulations when he formed Pass the Torch USA Inc. just two weeks after leaving an advisory role with the campaign. The non-profit organization asserts evidence "strongly suggests" that he made $450,000 in coordinated communications with the campaign. 

Campaign for Accountability claims the PAC falsely reported the communications as an independent expenditure and "failed to disclose as in-kind contributions." 

DEMOCRAT DEAN PHILLIPS ATTACKS BIDEN FOR TRYING TO UPEND TRADITIONAL PRIMARY ELECTION PROCESS

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn, during a campaign stop, Tuesday, October 31, 2023, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

"Candidates and their committees cannot coordinate strategy with super PACs. When the architect of the Phillip’s campaign suddenly moves over to lead a super PAC supporting Phillip’s candidacy the moment the ink on the blueprint is dry, the coordination is clear," said Michelle Kuppersmith, Campaign for Accountability executive director. 

The FEC complaint was first reported by Axios.

In a statement, the Phillips campaign called the allegations "baseless." 

DEAN PHILLIPS CALLS BIDEN POSSIBLY ‘UNELECTABLE’ IN 2024 AFTER GOP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Political Analyst at NBC Steve Schmidt and Elise Jordan speak onstage at Day 1 of the Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit 2018 at The Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on October 9, 2018, in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images) (Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images)

"The complaint is baseless and does not allege a single specific example of coordination," a campaign spokesman told Fox News Digital. "All it takes is one look at our paid TV ads to see how different the strategies of these two entities are. Regardless, we can say without question that the campaign has at all times complied with the law and has not engaged in any coordination with Pass the Torch, Steve Schmidt or any other party."

Campaign for Accountability noted that Pass the Torch ran an ad campaign that echoed themes from Phillips' campaign, including the message "It's time to pass the torch to a new generation of American leaders." The group said this message was developed by Schmidt for Phillips, who is challenging President Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. 

PHILLIPS TARGETS BIDEN, FELLOW DEMOCRATS OVER BORDER POLICIES AS HE LAUNCHES PRIMARY CHALLENGE AGAINST PRESIDENT

U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN)(R) holds a rally outside of the N.H. Statehouse after handing over his declaration of candidacy form for President to the New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, on October 27, 2023, in Concord, New Hampshire. While touting the accomplishments of President Biden, Rep. Phillips believes that new democratic leadership is needed and has joined the 2024 presidential race.  (Gaelen Morse/Getty Images)

"If the communications by Pass the Torch had been created, produced or distributed after substantial discussions between Schmidt and Phillips, it would constitute a prohibited coordinated communication," the group said. 

The complaint suggests that alleged improper coordination between Pass the Torch and the Phillips campaign may have violated FEC rules against accepting prohibited contributions and reporting requirements for in-kind contributions.

"The FEC should immediately investigate whether Schmidt, Pass the Torch, and Dean 24 violated the law and, if so, seek appropriate sanctions," Kuppersmith said. 

Phillips launched his long-shot bid to challenge Biden in October but so far has not gained much traction in the polls against the incumbent president. 

Chris Pandolfo is a writer for Fox News Digital. Send tips to chris.pandolfo@fox.com and follow him on Twitter @ChrisCPandolfo.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/columns/david-m-shribman-the-real-power-of-the-write-in-campaign/article_ecc0d6f6-2191-11ee-acdc-3bddbe798ebd.html

David M. Shribman: The real power of the write-in campaign

• Jan 5, 2024 

Gary Franks

CONCORD — There is a phony political contest going on here, just below the radar, that Joe Biden can only lose.

He almost certainly won't; but there's danger anyhow in the companion to the bruising New Hampshire primary, where four Republicans are desperately trying to defeat a former president, Donald Trump, but probably won't.

Biden's allies — mostly establishment Democratic figures, some of whom might welcome his withdrawal — are ramping up a write-in campaign in New Hampshire to permit him to prevail in a contest that he says shouldn't matter and that he took steps to ensure wouldn't matter — unless of course he loses.

Months ago, the president, who finished fifth here in 2000, ordered Democrats to begin their primary contests in South Carolina rather than New Hampshire, which has held the first primary for more than a century. Thus the results of this month's contest won't count in the struggle for delegates at the Democratic convention.

But he, or rather his surrogates, are competing anyway. Just the other day, Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois — ssshhhh! He might run for president if Biden demurs — sent out an appeal to Democrats arguing this write-in campaign was "truly, vitally important."

This is a big risk, even if Biden's opponents are the self-help author Marianne Williamson and little-known Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota. New Hampshire will allow pretty much anyone to vote in the GOP primary, and Trump opponents might be happier casting a ballot for former Gov. Nikki Haley than a meaningless write-in for Biden.

And then there is the 1968 flashing caution light.

President Lyndon Johnson didn't compete in New Hampshire then, but a similar write-in campaign was underway anyway. Johnson's team was worried enough to conduct private polls that suggested his lone opponent, Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, might manage 18%. "I never allowed my name to go on the ticket in New Hampshire," the president said later in an oral history for his presidential library. "If I had, I have no doubt that I would have won New Hampshire 2-to-1."

But he didn't, and he didn't.

McCarthy came within 230 votes of defeating Johnson.

There was trouble for LBJ from the start. "He had never spent a winter's morning standing outside the Brown Paper Co. in Berlin greeting workers arriving for their shift," Charles Brereton wrote in his 1987 "First in the Nation." "Nor had he ever strolled up and down a Main Street greeting shoppers or merchants."

Two days before the primary, Johnson bid Lady Bird to their bedroom. He had gone for a nap but couldn't sleep. Maybe it was because of the conversation the couple had had earlier in the day. She asked him, not in a querulous way but in a curious way, "Suppose someone else were elected president, what could 'X' do that you could not do?"

Johnson's answer: "He could unite the country and start getting some things done. That would last about a year, maybe two years."

In her diary, Mrs. Johnson engaged in deep reflection. "I think that is what weighs heaviest on Lyndon's mind. Can he unite the country, or is there simply too much built-up antagonism, division, a general malaise, which may have the Presidency — or this President — irrevocably as its focal point?"

A month earlier, U.S. News and World Report had said, "At this point, there is just one near certainty about the '68 elections ... Lyndon Johnson, health permitting, will be the Democratic nominee." Chicago Daily News columnist Carl Rowan wrote at about the same time that the chances that the president wouldn't run "can't be better than a million to one."

The Johnsons — husband and wife, daughters Lynda and Luci — had discussed the trajectory of the presidency frequently, repeatedly vetting the question of whether they might leave the White House at the end of Johnson's first term, in January 1969. Mrs. Johnson was clear-eyed about it; one full term was enough. Luci worried about her father's health. Lynda preferred that he demur. As early as September 1967, 14 months before the election, press secretary George Christian was noodling around with a withdrawal statement. Gov. John Connolly was recruited to help.

Johnson shared his doubts about another term with, among others, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The president was preoccupied with the question of whether the American combatants in Vietnam would feel let down. Gen. William Westmoreland assured him they wouldn't.

Meanwhile, Horace Busby was working on the language the president might use to announce such a decision, perhaps during his State of the Union Address. Many years ago, Busby, who had become a very good source of mine, told me that he wasn't sure whether Johnson would use that occasion. In the event, the president forgot to bring the statement with him to the Capitol.

On March 31, in a nationally televised address on Vietnam, he said: "With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office."

He said in his memoir: "I had used the power of the Presidency proudly, and I used every ounce of it I had. I used it to establish programs that gave thousands of youngsters a head start in school, that enabled thousands of old folks to live in clean nursing homes, that brought justice to the Negro and hope to the poor, that forced the nation to face the growing problems of pollution."

He continued, in language that might give Biden jitters, or courage:

"In this exercise of power, I knew a satisfaction that only a limited number of men have ever known, and that I could have had in no other way. Men, myself included, do not lightly give up the opportunity to achieve so much lasting good, but a man who uses power effectively must also be a realist. He must understand that by spending power, he dissipates it."

A botched write-in campaign helped nudge Johnson out of a reelection campaign. It could happen again. It probably won't, but it could.

•••

David M. Shribman is the former executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

 

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/columns/gary-franks-where-have-you-gone-joe-dimaggio-or-clinton-bush-and-obama/article_f1f0a49a-ab1f-11ee-a8dc-c3cd284441ce.html#tncms-source=article-nav-next 

 

Gary Franks: ‘Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?’ or Clinton, Bush, and Obama

• Jan 4, 2024

I am asking the living and healthy past presidents of the United States, except for Donald Trump (a presidential candidate) to step up, help, and contribute to America again as advisors or as prominent and experienced Americans who can influence others. Unconventional times warrant unconventional solutions.

Long after leaving office former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger continued to advise our nation’s leaders until his death last year at the age of 100. He did so privately, at times publicly, and always respectfully.

Some of the lyrics to Simon and Garfinkel’s hit song Mrs. Robinson go like this, “Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.” Well, where have you gone former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama?

Admittedly, each of you have had your detractors, but the following two things are undeniable about you:

1. You kept us from being on the verge of World War III. We did not have two areas of the world with conflicts that could easily escalate (like we do now – Eastern Europe and the Middle East).

2. When you all were in office, we did not have a total disaster at our southern border with Mexico. From any objective observer’s perspective, today that border is like a Trojan Horse, disguising an unarmed but war-like invasion.

The record is clear. Since President Joe Biden entered the White House, an unprecedented number – millions perhaps – have crossed over our border illegally. More than 100,000 Americans have been killed by Fentanyl in a single year because of drug trafficking along the border. Gang-related activities in our cities, fueled by what’s happening on the border, have taken the lives of countless people as well.

Let us not forget, the cost of caring for illegal immigrants comes from money we do not have. Funds are borrowed and added to our $34 trillion national debt and are crippling our major cities and border states.

Unlike any other time in U.S. history, we have challenges before us that drastically need all the talent and brain power we can muster.

Seeing these problems and doing nothing makes us all complicit.

It cannot be any clearer. Help is needed for the Biden administration. Octogenarians like Biden and Senate Republican Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, along with a Congress that believes the tail should be wagging the dog, are all not what they used to be.

Biden’s cabinet members are a mere reflection of Biden with a few independent thoughts. Mostly, they wait for directions from Biden who reportedly holds meetings only from 10 a.m. to 4p.m.

For example, it took three years before Biden sent his top officials to Mexico to discuss the border crisis with that country’s president.

This begs some questions: Is Biden faithfully executing the office of president? Is he preserving and protecting America?

He may be working up to the best of his ability however, as America’s oldest president.

Where are we today? I am concerned about our national security. Terrorist threats to America are at remarkably elevated levels as recently reported by FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Last year while Russia was fighting Ukraine, it was reported that more than 7,000 Russians illegally crossed into America via our porous border with Mexico.

Last year while China was spying on America with an air balloon, which our government allowed to travel across America (as the Chinese have been trying to establish a base in Western Hemisphere), it was reported that 24,000 Chinese nationals crossed illegally into America from Mexico.

The solution is to be like a plumber. Shut off the water. We have a broken pipe, a broken system. Stop the flow of people and then fix the problem – at its source. We should be prepared to use our troops to stop anyone from entering America at the southern border until new legislation is adopted. To let the water keep flowing while we try to fix the overall problem (which could take awhile) is irrational. Not a plumber on the planet would do that.

Part two of the immediate solution: strictly enforce the law that penalizes employers for hiring illegal immigrants. We should substantially increase the penalty against employers who break the law.

As for illegal immigrants, why reward them for breaking the law when we treat them better than Americans or those attempting to come to America legally?

If we took this aggressive approach we would have positive change.

Without jobs, most illegal immigrants would want to exit America as quickly as they entered. Giving illegal immigrants jobs or welfare only encourages more illegal immigrants to come to America. We must remember that the workforce participation rate for Americans is only 62% – far worse than it was in the last century. Americans need training and work. The unemployment rate only measures those who are actively seeking employment (leaving out many others).

Relatively speaking, all other issues are merely simple politics. We have had high (and burdensome) inflation resulting in a 20% increase in the cost of goods and services since 2021. Our interest rates have doubled. But both issues can be corrected in the November election.

However, preventing World War III and protecting our border cannot wait until November. We have to correct these elephants in the room now, and fast. These threats will not go anywhere unless we remove them.

Past presidents, we need you now, at least as much as we needed you when you served in the White House. Your talents and abilities have not measurably waned. Heck, for starters, you are all younger than Biden and your mental acumen is far sharper.

•••

Gary Franks served three terms as U.S. representative for Connecticut’s 5th District. He was the first Black Republican elected to the House in nearly 60 years and New England’s first Black member of the House. Host: podcast "We Speak Frankly." Author: "With God, For God, and For Country." @GaryFranks

 

laconiadailysun.com
781 Union Ave.
Laconia, NH 03246
Phone: 603-527-9299
Email: ads@laconiadailysun.com

 

https://www.thewellnews.com/opinions/bob-dole-the-gentleman-from-kansas/

 

Bob Dole – the Gentleman From Kansas

COMMENTARY

December 8, 2021 by Gary Franks

 

 

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole stands up and salutes the casket of the late former President George H. W. Bush as he lies in state at the U.S. Capitol, Dec. 4, 2018, in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images/TNS)

My children often look at me as having lived the Forrest Gump type life with regard to people I have met, worked with, or befriended. Bob Dole is one of those great men.

Senator Robert “Bob” Dole holds a meaningful though enigmatic place in my political life as he was never my first choice for the Republican nomination for president. I am embarrassed to say today that he was always my third choice. Yet he had a positive impact on my 12 years as an elected official, and especially the six years I worked with him in Congress. I was a tireless worker for his candidacy for president in 1996.

Since Bob Dole’s career spanned more than 50 years, I was in high school when I first heard his name. And I was just out of college when he first ran for national office as the GOP vice presidential candidate.

He had earned the nickname of being a “hatchet” man for his attacks on opponents during the 1976 presidential election between Democrat Jimmy Carter and incumbent Republican president Gerald Ford. He was also a defender of President Nixon as the Republican National Committee Chair, and a staunch conservative.

I always tell folks that Republican Party candidates have “substance” with a little style and the Democrat Party candidates have “style” with a little substance. The public is good at deciphering between the two qualities, giving Republicans a six to four edge over Democrats in winning the White House during the last 50 years. Democrat victories usually entail individuals with a lot of style, the current occupant – President Joe Biden – being the exception. I say with affection that “boring” could describe all the GOP presidents, the last – former president Donald Trump – being the exception.

Bob Dole was not that “warm and fuzzy” guy. But for me he had his own charm. He was a war hero, loyal friend, honest and patriotic. A man with immense integrity, he could measure people quickly.

He took on political fights and led the charge in a variety of noteworthy areas. Americans with Disabilities Act is his signature achievement, but he also led the passage of every civil rights bill starting in the 1960s. He helped ensure that a higher percentage of Republicans in Congress voted in favor of these bills than Democrats. He supported the Voting Rights Act. He advocated to make Martin Luther King Jr. Day into a national holiday. He pushed legislation to quickly eradicate the rash of black church burnings when I was in Congress. His thumb print can be found on a lot of meaningful, life-changing legislation over a half century.

He was GOP leader in the Senate for about a decade, leaving Congress in 1996. Back then, Congress passed legislation via Regular Order and normally in a timely manner. Today, and since the last 25 years, Congress has merely kicked the can down the road. They have failed to do the most basic part of their job as members of Congress when it comes to spending bills.

Regular Order fosters bipartisanship as each subcommittee chair would typically ascertain support from both parties before presenting the spending bill to the full committee and ultimately to the House or Senate floor for passage.

Today, the loudest voice in the room gets all the attention and raises the most campaign money, not necessarily the best and brightest. The use of Regular Order in Congress would reveal true talent, and those with the most potential to be productive members of Congress and future leaders. Mr. Dole understood this fact.

Back in 1983 Dole led the bipartisan effort to keep Social Security solvent until the year 2029, something current members of Congress refuse to tackle.

Lastly, the other bond we shared was over the 1996 election. Dole ended his career in Congress voluntarily, on his own terms, by resigning. Conversely, that same year, my elected career ended involuntarily when I lost my bid for a fourth term in Congress. God knows best.

A new era in politics had begun. For Republicans, the media seemed to join the unions as a de facto appendage of the Democratic Party. Cable news had arrived. A charismatic incumbent – President Bill Clinton – would go on to beat Bob Dole by nine points in the 1996 election.

A pivotal issue was Medicare. President Clinton, with the help of the media, had convinced the public that Republican efforts to save Medicare (which the Congressional Budget Office now says can remain solvent only until 2024) amounted to a big cut in Medicare spending. In reality, the GOP wanted to slow the growth of Medicare. Both parties were seeking to increase Medicare spending.

Yes, a new era of politics was beginning, where half-truths and distortions were becoming commonplace.

America needs more Bob Doles. He was a gentleman, a leader willing to take on any foe, domestic or foreign, a worker fighting for “Americans first,” and a pragmatist. He realized that compromise and bipartisanship bring Americans together, making us a stronger nation and ensuring our greatness for decades to come.

---

Gary Franks served three terms as U.S. representative for Connecticut’s 5th District. He was the first Black Republican elected to the House in nearly 60 years and New England’s first Black member of the House. Host: podcast “We Speak Frankly.” Author: “With God, For God, and For Country.” @GaryFranks

---

©2021 Gary Franks. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

October 13, 2018

THE WELL NEWS ANNOUNCES HIRING OF MANAGING DIRECTOR

WASHINGTON – The Well News is pleased to announce the addition of Christina Paulos as our new managing director. Paulos brings over a decade of experience in operations and business development to The Well News from her work with multiple small and medium sized organizations in Washington, DC, California, and Idaho.

The Well News is a digital-first national media outlet dedicated to providing unique reporting, elevating policy, and insights from leaders who are driving thoughtful discussion and real change throughout the country. At a time when so much of media coverage is focused on the views of those on the far right and far left, TWN strives to cover the business, policy and thought leaders across the country who are actually getting things done. Their goal is to cut through the noise and provide accurate, interesting and exclusive coverage of the issues that impact our lives every day and the people who are taking real steps to make change for the better.

Most recently, at RealClear Media Group, Paulos oversaw operations and spent more than six years developing the respected and nonpartisan news outlet’s audience, products, polling syndication, and strategic partnerships.

“We relied on Christina’s energy and vision every day for the past six years,” said RealClear executive editor Carl Cannon. “She was a versatile, competent, caring, innovative, and resourceful colleague. Indispensable, really. A rock star.”

Paulos’ intellectual intensity and natural leadership abilities will enable her to bridge divides that grow wider on a daily basis. Her track record of finding sustainable models to fund journalism will help The Well News position itself as a thought leader and key influencer in today’s challenging news environment.

Before joining RealClearMedia, Paulos worked as a research assistant at the Transatlantic Academy, a research partnership between the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) and the ZEIT-Stiftung Ebelin und Gerd Bucerius; she coordinated the Jarbidge Resource Management Plan at the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Paulos holds a bachelor’s degree in international relations, with a focus in international business, from the University of San Diego.

******

Contact:

Sean Trambley

For more information, email Press@TheWellNews.com

Christina@TheWellNews.com