Nobody Remembers This

In the wake of President Biden's fall at the Air Force Academy and his subsequent near-accident on Marine One, nobody has mentioned Jimmy Carter's September 16, 1979 collapse during a cross-country race near Camp David.

The incident occurred just 200 yards past the entrance to Camp David as Carter neared the top of the second major hill on the course. Between 800 and 900 runners were participating in the event.

Lt. Col. Paul Kramer of Washington, who was jogging close behind Carter, told United Press International he saw "his legs collapse. He looked in pretty bad shape. His head was down, and he just looked lousy."

Ther story had more details:

Carter, wobbly and moaning, was kept from collapsing by security men who held him erect as he staggered to the top of a long hill in the fourth mile of the Catoctin Mountains race.

Colman McCarthy, a Washington Post reporter who was running in pace with Carter, described the president as "ashen" and in distress.

Carter was assisted to a golf cart, where the White House physician, Dr. William Lukash, examined him and urged the president not to run any farther. He moved to a White House car and was driven into Camp David to recover.

Earlier that summer, July 15, Carter had given his "malaise" speech. That August, he'd taken a week-long cruise on a Mississippi steamboat that editorial cartoons at the time portrayed as a hyped-up but effective end to his presidency. Oddly, web searches on all these episodes suggest the airbrush artists have been hard at work. Discussions of the malaise speech say he never used the word, but I watched it, and I remember it clearly. Possibly he ad-libbred something that wasn't in the text. However it happened, everyone called it the maiaise speech.

By the same token, accounts of the riverboat cruise are strangely bland, when reaction in the country at the time, at least as I remember it, was that the trip was oddly irrelevant. Web searches on "Carter riverboat cruise cartoon" come up empty.

The problem is that presidential falls, or falls by presidential candidates, are news. Gerald Ford's knee gave way in 1975 on a trip to Austria, and he tumbled down the stairs of Air Force One. Bill Cinton fell going down steps at a party in 1997 under circumstances that have never been clear. Hillary stumbled and had to be bundled into a van during a 9/11 event in 2016. Ford's, Carter's, and Hillary's falls all either augured or influenced the outcome of their respective elections. Politico, even while trying to minimize Biden's own fall, commented,

Questions about Biden’s age can’t be shaken. And clips like the ones that came Thursday don’t help with the White House’s task of trying to dismiss those subterranean concerns from within the party.

Even after a successful midterm election cycle last fall, Biden’s approval rating remains stuck around 40 percent. And recent polls have shown that a majority of Americans would prefer a different Democratic candidate next year. Perhaps as much as the economy, national security or cultural issues, it is Biden’s age that could be a determining factor for voters. That’s true even if Republicans renominate former President Donald Trump, who is 76.

Jimmy Casrter was 55 when he fell in 1979. Gerald Ford was 62. Joe Biden is 80.

And Biden is about the last of the dwindling generation of elderly Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein who've been able to maintain a facade of respectability for the party that's lost the New Deal coalition of ethnics, Catholics, and labor in favvor of black separitists, parlor leftists, the urban criminal class, and radical queers. The national mood is sour. The visuals, at least for now, aren't good.

Have The Republicans Been Playing Director Wray Over The FD-1023 Form?

Over the past month, there's been a cat-and-mouse game between congressional Republicans and FBI Director Wray over a purported FBI FD-1023 form that may contain allegations of bribery against Joe Biden when he was vice president. My kabuki alarm had been going off over this from the start. Here was the status as of May 3:

Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member and long-time whistleblower advocate Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) today are demanding the FBI produce an unclassified record alleging a criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national. The document, an FBI-generated FD-1023 form, allegedly details an arrangement involving an exchange of money for policy decisions. Comer issued a subpoena today following legally protected disclosures to Grassley’s office.

Director Wray slow-walked a passive-aggressive reply on May 10:

FBI Director Christopher Wray declined during his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday to confirm whether the document exists.

“I will tell you that we understand completely the importance of congressional oversight, that’s important to me,” Wray said. “I also understand very much, as I think you do, the importance of us protecting sources and methods and ongoing investigations.”

. . . “An FD-1023 form documents information as told to a line FBI agent. Recording the information does not validate the information, establish its credibility, or weigh it against other information known or developed by the FBI,” [acting FBI assistant directotr Christoper] Dunham wrote. “The mere existence of such a document would establish little beyond the fact that a confidential human source provided information and the FBI recorded it."

And over the next several weeks, there was wrangling over whether a specific FD-1023 detailing an alleged bribery scheme involving Joe Biden existed at all, and even if it did, whether it proved anything. And the Republicans continued to imply in their statements that an unnanmed whistleblower had simply told them about the FD-1023 -- and they simply wanted a copy, if the FBI had one. Per the link above,

Comer and Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, claimed they had spoken to an unnamed whistleblower who claimed the FBI document included evidence that Biden, while vice president, was allegedly involved in an illegal payment that also involved a foreign national. Comer subpoenaed the document, setting a Wednesday deadline for the FBI to provide it. Pressed in media interviews for more details about the whistleblower’s claims, Grassley has admitted he does not know whether they are true or false.

So their position for all of last month was, at least for public consumption, "Please, oh, please, Mr FBI director, if such an FD-1023 exists, please provide us with a copy! Or we shall have to demand it through channels!" Wray's answer has basically been "Bwahahaha!" But the log jam began to break on May 30:

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday warned he would move contempt charges against FBI Director Christopher Wray

House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) issued a subpoena earlier this month to compel Wray to produce any FD-1023 forms — records of interactions with confidential sources — from June 2020 that contain the word “Biden.”

. . . McCarthy’s pledge to bring contempt charges gives weight to Comer’s threat. He said he personally called Wray to tell him to produce the document.

Notice, though, that the subpoena from the Comer committee was broad -- any FD-1023s at all that contained the word "Biden". This still implied that there was maybe such a thing or maybe not. And indeed, as of May 30, received opinion from Dan Abrams and NewsNation was that this was just a vague fishing expedition:

Former FBI agent Tracy Walder tells NewsNation host Dan Abrams it’s “highly unusual” for someone to demand the release of an FD-1023 and that the House Oversight Committee’s request seems like a “very broad fishing expedition.”

But late this week, everything turned upside down. First, according to the Daily Wire, on Friday:

Top lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee will review an FBI document containing allegations that President Joe Biden received a multi-million-dollar bribe from an “adversarial country” on Monday.

Committee chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY) and ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) will review the document in a secured facility, known as the SCIF, for reviewing sensitive intelligence. The document will not be handed over to Congress, despite recent reports suggesting otherwise.

But even that changed later in the day, according to Just the News:

Facing a potential contempt of Congress vote, FBI Director Christopher Wray relented and has agreed to bring a subpoenaed document from the Biden family investigation to Capitol Hill for lawmakers to inspect on Monday, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer announced Friday.

. . . As recently as Wednesday, Wray indicated he would not turn over the document in compliance with the subpoena, but would let lawmakers come read it at the FBI. But a deal was struck late Thursday for the FBI to bring the document to the Capitol, officials said.

The threat of a Contempt of Congress vote against Wray would actually be idle, since the Biden Justice Deparment would have to prosecute it, and they simply wouldn't move forward. A civil lawsuit would take years to go through the courts. So what changed Wray's mind? The Federalist has what I think is the only credible take:

Sen. Chuck Grassley has already seen the FBI’s lengthy summary of a confidential human source’s claims that then-Vice President Joe Biden agreed to accept money from a foreign national to affect policy decisions, the Iowa Republican revealed on Thursday. Grassley further pledged to make the FBI report public as soon as the bureau complies with a congressional subpoena to provide an official copy of the FD-1023 form — something Director Christopher Wray has so far refused to do.

. . . That Grassley has already seen the FD-1023 summary of the CHS’s allegations raises the likelihood that the senator had access to additional documentary support for the whistleblower’s claims.

. . . And what about the other documents Grassley has requested that Wray provide? Does the senator already have copies of those?

This, of course, changes everything. It sounds to me as though when the unnamed whistleblower first went to Grassley and Comer, he already had a photocopy of the FD-1023 in hand, and the Republicans were playing Wray all along in subpoenaing the original. When did Wray become aware that the Republicans already had a copy of the FD-1023?

It does sound as though the Republicans, perhaps including Speaker McCarthy in his own call to Wray, eventually explained we can do this the hard way, or you can make it easy on yourself. This can be a disastrous blow to your credibility, or just a routine one.

Grassley has also pledged to make the contents of the FD-1023, which is unclassified, public as soon aa the FBI complies with the subpeoena. What's in it remains to be seen.

The Baseball Players

There's a notable overall pattern here: a dog that wasn't supposed to bark is actually barking, at least a little bit. A few Major League Baseball pitchers, including two on the Dodgers team itself, have objected to the Dodgers' plan to give a hero award to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. This comes in a context, whereby as early as last January, well before l'affaire Bud Light, some National Hockey League players refused to wear Pride jerseys for their respective teams' Pride nights.

The most recent example came on March 7, when Minnesota Wild players chose to not wear special Pride Night jerseys that had been designed.

According to the link, though, this is actually a dastardly Russian plot.

According to a report from The Athletic, there is a connection to Russia in all of this. On March 10, The Athletic published a report titled "The NHL's Russia-Pride jersey problem, explained: Why Wild became latest to scrap plans."

The report explains how NHL players specifically from Russia have played a part in what has become a league-wide controversy.

However, the story goes on to say that fully five percent of NHL players are from Russia, so they must have an outsize influence on their 95% non-Russian teammates. And it cites non-Russian players who are also objecting:

Florida Panthers forward Eric Staal and defenseman Marc Staal did not participate in the team's warmups prior to Thursday's game against the Toronto Maple Leafs after deciding not to wear Pride jerseys. The Panthers took their turn in hosting their annual Pride Night on Thursday.

The Staal brothers released a statement saying that they chose not to wear the Pride jerseys because it goes against their Christian beliefs.

. . . The San Jose Sharks held their Pride Night on Saturday and the team's players wore jerseys in support of the LGBTQ+ community during warmups. However, prior to the game, Sharks goalie James Reimer announced that he wouldn't be participating in warmups and cited his religious beliefs as the reasoning behind the decision.

. . . In an email to season-ticket holders, the [New York] Rangers revealed that they were planning to wear Pride-themed jerseys during warmups prior to their game against the Vegas Golden Knights on Jan. 27. Those jerseys, the team said, would be auctioned off after the game.

Instead, the team wore their traditional home jerseys when they took the ice for warmups before the Jan. 27 game.

Although as many as five percent of NHL players may have had problems with returning to Russia if they endorsed Pride merchandise, the actual roots of the NHL's problem are clearly more widespread, and the baseball players who are annoucning opposition to the Dodgers' plans are specifically citing Christian beliefs, not potential Russian retaliation. Brian Burch, head of CatholicVote, which has been in the lead for anti-Dodgers protests, said in an e-mail:

It’s now much bigger than the Dodgers. According to reports, the Major League Baseball players union is pressing the league to put a stop to teams pushing political agendas on players.

It has also been reported that a huge number of players will refuse to wear “pride” or “trans” flags if asked to by their teams.

I think the problem is that professional players work under contract. They have agents who manage their business affairs. The teams for which they play under contract can trade them or release them, so that they aren't tied exclusively to their teams' brand -- they have to maintain individual brands as individual entrepreneurs throughout their careers and even afterwards, when their endorsements continue to be valuable even when they retire.

The hockey players were clearly nervous even before Bud Light, but in its wake, baseball players have come to recognize that poor judgment in their teams' front offices can force them into endorsements that can be toxic to their careers and even hurt their retirements.

The saddest case is Toronto Blue Jays pitcher Anthony Bass:

This past Monday, Bass shared a video on his Instagram Stories that featured influencer Ryan Miller calling on Christians to boycott Bud Light over the Dylan Mulvaney partnership and Target for the Pride Merchandise collection. Two days later, he apologized.

The response from the Blue Jays front office was clearly meant to discourage anyone else from following suit:

The Blue Jays posted a short video of Bass on Twitter addressing reporters with a brief statement expressing remorse for boosting the visibility of a video on Instagram making a biblical case against spending money to support businesses that are pushing people, particularly children, to “darkness.”

. . . “I just spoke with my teammates and shared with them my actions yesterday. I apologized with [sic] them, and as of right now I am using the Blue Jays’ resources to better educate myself to make better decisions moving forward,” he added. “The ballpark is for everybody. We include all fans at the ballpark. We want to welcome everybody. That’s all I have to say.”

Commentators compared the video to a "hostage situation". Look at that facial expression in the photo at the top of this post.

The Blue Jay's subsequent reaction was remarkably heavy-handed:

. . . The Blue Jays issued a statement voicing support for the LGBTQ community.

. . . Toronto manager John Schneider indicated he believes there needs to be more than just an apology from Bass.

“We’re not going to pretend like this never happened,” Schneider said, according to MLB.com. “We’re not going to pretend like it’s the end and move on. There are definitely more steps that are going to follow.”

Is he gonna have to bend over and be gang raped by the team, or what?

At Bass's next home game appearance, he was roundly booed by the Toronto fans, although accounts indicate it wasn't clear whether they were booing him for his original support for a third-party opinion or for his subsequent cave. Clearly, though, the Blue Jays were able to make credible threats against him that the Dodgers have so far been unable to carry through with either their own Clayton Kershaw or Blake Treinen, who have both spoken out against the team's re-invitation to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. (I suspect both met with their agents and legal counsel before they spoke out. Bass likely should have but didn't.)

As to the question of whether the Toronto fans were booing Bass for his initial statement or his recantation, I'm with the first. Canadians are pretty much with the program.

Target May Have ‘Lost Control Of Narrative’

Gee, d'ya think? In this morning's New York Post,

Target’s decision to move some of its LGBT pride apparel in some of its locations made national headlines, and it may have lost control of its own narrative in the process, a top consumer researcher says.

Notice how gingerly the Post is covering this story. As I noted a week ago, Target's own corporate flack Erik Castaneda told Reuters that products are being withdrawn at all locations, not just in some southern states.

The products Target is withdrawing are being removed from all its U.S. stores and from its website, Castaneda said.

And as I noted yesterday, a YouTuber went undercover, representing himself as someone who wanted to buy a "tuck friendly" swimsuit, and was able to speak with a manager who explained these were "out of stock". Clearly Target is doing this very quietly, but as I noted in yesterday's post, it appeared to be actively dumping its Pride products even before the start of Pride Month.

But let's get back to the Post story:

[Chief insights officer for Collage Group David] Evans said Target had a long history of connecting with the LGBT community, but in the time period since it came to light that it was moving some of its Pride displays due to what it claimed were “threats” against some staffers, it’s faced heat from both ends of the political spectrum.

. . . "they probably did lose control of the narrative a little bit, because what ended up happening was the press is all about ‘Target pulls the merchandise,’ as opposed to Target employees are being threatened by, in fact, a very, very small group of people who represent a very small minority of anti-LGBT sentiment,” he told Fox News Digital.

Here's the problem. It's generally assumed that the Target and Bud Light boycotts are equivalent and stem from the same large-scale customer dissatisfaction with corporate catering to radical queers. The most easily quantifiable measure of how effective the boycotts have been is Bud Light sales:

The sales volume of Bud Light dropped 29.5% in the week ending May 20 as compared to the same period last year, according to data provided to Newsweek by Bump Williams Consulting and Nielsen IQ. This data showed the sales revenue drop 25.7% in the same period.

The nearly 30% drop marks another increase in losses week to week since the boycott gained traction in April. Bud Light sales dropped 28.4% from last year for the week ending May 13.

Bud Light lost 24% of its sales and Budweiser fell 10.5% in the four weeks ending May 20, according to the data.

Current headlines suggest this level of decline threatens Bud Light's position as the top US beer brand. This is simply not the result of "a very, very small group of people who represent a very small minority of anti-LGBT sentiment". We simply don't have equivalent reports of Target sales, but we do hear from headlines that Target's stock has been declining at record levels:

Target’s stock has lost a whopping $13.8 billion over the past two weeks, hitting its lowest levels in nearly three years as the “cheap chic” discount retailer continues to face backlash over LGBTQ-friendly kids clothing.

. . . The ongoing losses are a result of an ongoing 14-day boycott that was triggered by Target’s release of “PRIDE,” an LGBTQ-friendly line that includes clothing for children and “tuck-friendly” women’s swimwear with “extra crotch coverage.”

What this simply means is that investors are shorting Target stock irrespective of published sales figures, which aren't available.

Short selling involves borrowing a security whose price you think is going to fall from your brokerage and selling it on the open market. Your plan is to then buy the same stock back later, hopefully for a lower price than you initially sold it for, and pocket the difference after repaying the initial loan.

The link makes it clear that shorting a stock involves considerable risk, and short sellers must already have margin accounts with their brokerages to cover that risk. In other words, these are experienced investors who are making informed bets about Target's future performance. Again, this is not a story about "a very, very small group of people who represent a very small minority of anti-LGBT sentiment". This is a story about experienced investors who are losing confidence in Target's management.

That Target should be keeping so quiet about withdrawing its "tuck friendly" swimsuit range is an indication that its management is doing all it can to conceal a disastrous mistake. The whole situation is starting to remind me of the scene in The Big Short where Mark Baum, the contrarian fund manager, accuses a credit agency analyst, shown wearing medical eyeshades in the picture at the top of this post, of refusing to recognize that the mortgage securities her agency rates are fraudulent.

The corporations that are facing the boycotts are basically hoping it'll all blow over before they're forced to capitulate with apologies and CEO departures. It can take a long time for investors to respond to market reality, as The Big Short makes clear, but eventually there's a reckoning. Legacy media, including the New York Post, is feeding the denial, at least for now.

UPDATE: JPMorgan Chase & Co. downgraded Target stock on Thursday from "overweight" to "neutral," with analysts citing the possibility of a decline in sales due to consumers pulling back spending amid persistent inflation.

This comes as the retailer struggles with the backlash from its Pride merchandising marketing campaign which offered merchandise that included female-style swimsuits that have the option to "tuck" male genitalia.

The downgrade has nothing to do with that, of course. Just thought they'd mention it.

What do you think might happen to the stock if they actually announced they were sending the swimsuits to the landfill and the CEO was resigning?

How Goes The Battle?

Well, if anyone needs to read the tea leaves, Dylan Mulvaney

just did a TikTok video that confusingly reveals he spoke with his dad and told him he was attracted to and wanted to date women, while at the same time asserting that he wanted to have babies.

But an even more intriguing data point is this one at TheStreet: Target Just Dumped Its Pride Merchandise -- Here's Where It All May Go. This is important, because Bud Light has been the corporation least able to hide the damage the boycott has done -- although its weekly sales statistics are a week or more out of date when they're realeased, they're independent and hard to hide.

Target's sales are much harder to track down, although its decline in stock price has been visible, and anecdotal reports of empty stores over the Memorial Day weekend are at least encouraging. But the link, while it's clearly been placed by Target's own press and investor relations people, is notable for its spin:

Target Corporation (TGT) has decided to remove merchandise from its upcoming LGBQT Pride collection because of objections from right wing critics. [and this is before Pride Month, by the way.]

Fortunately, retailers have lots of experience getting rid of unsold apparel, whether by selling to off-price retailers like T.J. Maxx or Marshalls, both owned by TJX Companies Inc. (TJX) or just relegating clothing to landfills, which is not really good for the environment.

In Target’s case, the retailer will most likely -- and very quietly -- donate the merchandise to charities or foundations, possibly aligned with LGBTQ+ causes.

“We don’t have anything to share on this right now,” a company spokeswoman e-mailed TheStreet.

. . . [T]he retailer hasn’t disclosed how many products it plans to pull from the Pride collection. Target also declined to say what it will do with the merchandise.

So it sounds like the tuck-friendly bathing suits and rainbow-themed toddler outfits have already bombed, and the company will need to unload them -- but don't worry, this is all in the plan. Remember, this is addressed to an audience of investors.

Unlike Adidas, Target’s financial fallout is likely miniscule (although pulling products at all 1,954 stores across the country is no small thing.) In general, the retailer likes to keep its inventories lean.

. . . Target likes to employ time-limited collections to draw people to the stores so they can buy other items. The LGBTQ+ collection only lasts during Pride month in June.

Except, er, we aren't even in June yet, and they're having to dump the June Pride Month collection early. Isn't this a little like deciding your Christmas stuff isn't going to sell, so you're gonna start dumping it in November? The piece concludes,

Target might have escaped serious financial consequences but suffered a pretty big blow to its reputation. The retailer practically wrote the book on exclusive design partnerships, most notably its collaborations with Michael Graves, Isaac Mizrahi, Kate Spade, Missoni, and Jason Wu.

Beyond that,

Target’s stock has lost a whopping $12.7 billion over the past two weeks, hitting its lowest levels in nearly three years as the “cheap chic” discount retailer continues to face backlash over LGBTQ-friendly kids clothing.

The ongoing losses are a result of an ongoing 14-day boycott that was triggered by Target’s release of “PRIDE,” an LGBTQ-friendly line that includes clothing for children and “tuck-friendly” women’s swimwear with “extra crotch coverage.”

A line which, again, is now being dumped even before its Pride Month official debut. This video from an undercover YouTuber indicates that at least the "tuck friendly" bathing suits are unofficially withdrawn and are presumably among the stock being dumped.

So far, if media spin is any indication, the official line continues to be that the impact of the boycotts is minimal, no big deal, we'll just take it all in stride. AB InBev CEO Michel Doukeris set the tone from the start:

Doukeris said it's too early to determine the economic impact of Mulvaney's post or the calls to boycott the brand, and that Bud Light's volume decline in the U.S. during April only represents 1% of the brand's global volume. He added that Bud Light is just one of many beer brands owned by Anheuser-Busch, so it likely won't impact the company's "full-year outlook," per CNN.

But at that level, a loss of 1% in total volume is non-trivial, especially if it was brought about by a highly visible, unforced error -- and in Doukeris's case, if it was compounded by his own refusal to replace a bad subordinate.

The problem for Bud Light, now Target, and likely the Dodgers, is that the Pride boycotts are affecting sales and stock price for much longer than "experts" anticipated, and they're having a less tangible effect in damaging corporate reputations. So far, corporate culture has been slow to recognize the impact, but the impact is certainly there. This is inevitably going to play itself out.

Jonathan Turley Missses The Point

Homicide detectives say that when you're interrogating a suspect, an obvious lie is as good as a confession. I would extend this to say that when you're reading a respected commentator, seeing him obviously miss the point is as good as seeing him get it. In this column from Sunday, Jonathan Turley circles around and around in an effort to make a point, but he manages to miss it and unintentionally prove another one.

His basic problem, which he can't shake, is that he's a member of the gentry class, which in the current alignment is allied with the one-percent rentiers, along with Marx's Lumpenproletariat, and a small but influential group of radical intellectuals that includes the pansexuals.

According to Wikipedia,

His father, John (Jack) Turley was an international architect, partner at Skidmore, Owens, and Merrill, and the former associate of famed modernist architect Mies van der Rohe. . . . His mother, Angela Piazza Turley, was a social worker and activist who was the former president of Jane Addams Hull-House in Chicago.

. . . He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago in 1983, and a Juris Doctor degree from Northwestern University School of Law in 1987.

. . . During the Reagan Administration, Turley worked as an intern with the general counsel’s office of the National Security Agency (NSA).

. . . Turley holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School, where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. He is the youngest person to receive an academic chair in the school's history.

. . . His articles on legal and policy issues have appeared in national publications; he has had articles published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal. He frequently appears in the national media as a commentator on a multitude of subjects ranging from the 2000 U.S. presidential election controversy to the Terri Schiavo case in 2005.He often is a guest on Sunday talk shows, with more than two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox News Sunday.

In other words, he's a generational member of the Establishment, although in recent years he's adopted something of a Glenn Reynolds-style pose that "I'm not like the grifters who run this place." Nevertheless, the one thing he's never going to do is undermine his standing with his fellow grifters. His parents worked too hard to put him where he is.

The Bud Light boycott in particular has him worried.

Various writers dismissed the boycott against Bud Light and said that the company had to just “hold the line” because it would fade and fail. It hasn’t.

But something is happening that has taken experts by surprise. Consumers appear to be holding the line against a growing number of brands.

The response raises tough legal and business questions over companies launching campaigns viewed as political rather than commercial. On one hand, the objections to trans figures or products threaten a type of erasure of this part of our society. On the other hand, consumers are increasingly pushing back against what they see as heavy-handed marketing of causes. In the middle, often, are shareholders.

Cue furrowed brow -- he probably studies David Brooks for this point of style:

I support Target or companies selling pride products or items geared toward trans customers. However, some of these campaigns appear more than efforts to reach new pockets of consumers. Putting aside those with clear prejudices against a given group, some consumers are reacting to campaigns that appear to push political or social agendas rather than products.

. . . As private companies, they have every right to take these stances. Likewise, customers have every right to express their disagreement by seeking alternative products. The only other interested parties are the shareholders, who are faced with lower share values and higher losses.

You can bet Mr Turley is a member of the shareholder class himself and allied with the rentier one percent as well. This is clearly making him nervous.

It is not clear how these losses will impact social messaging through branding, but shareholders will have little influence.

Wait a moment. Shareholders via boards of directors have all the influence in the world. The board hires and fires the CEO, something of which Michel Doukeris, Brendan Whitworth, Brian Cornell, and Stan Kasten are all acutely aware. They are each fighting for their professional lives in this boycott epiosode, because the boycotts are unlikely to stop without apologies and high-profile departures. Mr Turley is badly missing an important point here in claiming that his allies in the rentier class are powerless. They can stop the boycotts whenever they please, and at some point, they'll have to.

Turley focuses on the executives, to the point that I'm not sure if he's being deliberately obtuse:

. . . While these campaigns may alienate consumers and even reduce profits, they offer personal and professional benefits for senior employees who make DEI policies a priority. The campaigns are the bona fides for executives in seeking opportunities and greater status.

. . . This is why executives will continue to pursue DEI campaigns regardless of their cost or the loss of consumers. Consumers seem to sense this “inherent logic,” and they are responding with the one means available to change the calculus. Companies will have to find a path through this morass with marketing that is inclusive and edgy without being political or proselytizing.

There's another factor that Mr Turley is completely ignoring here. The boycotts are great fun for the middle- and working-class consumers. For instance,

A new hip hop single called "Boycott Target" by Forgiato Blow and Jimmy Levy surged Monday to the No. 1 spot in the iTunes hip hop chart.

Taking advantage of the national backlash against Target having a Pride Month collection that included transgender "tuck-friendly" bathing suits seemingly designed for children, the song that was released Thursday made a quick rise to the top of the charts.

Target's stock has fallen $12.03 since May 17 and its market capitalization has plunged more than $10 billion in that time.

The Bud Light drinkers, Target shoppers, and as far as we can infer, the Dodgers fans, are sticking it to the toffs and having great fun doing it. Mr Turley, a toff if there ever was one, is so far clueless.

Bud Light, Target, The Dodgers, and Corporate Best Practices

I kept thinking about the basic principles of corporate crisis management and contingency planning that I outlined in yesterday's post for the rest of the day, and I came to some non-obvious conclusions. Let's start with the first principle that was in my link, but which I didn't quote yesterday:

Develop a crisis plan. Brainstorm potential crisis scenarios and use them to inform and regularly update your plan. . . . Simply having a plan is not enough when it comes to crisis management; you have to practice it. Everyone who would play a role should a crisis arise needs to know what the plan is and exactly what their role is.

Actually, any public corporation with a board of directors is required to show such a plan to its auditors, and show the auditors that it tests it. Banks, utilities, and other companies that are separately regulated need to account for this with their regulatory bodies as well. At least when I was writing such plans, they focused mainly on natural disasters, civil unrest, and terrorist attacks, but the principle was there, and in some companies that I consulted for, they also raised more basic questions of threats to the company's reputation.

But this raises an intriguing question: shouldn't someone on the staff at Bud Light, Target, or the Dodgers have been saying something like, "What about this scenario: the company picks a brand partner who immediately gets involved in an embarrassing scandal, and all of a sudden, there are videos and memes that go viral and make our brand look silly. What should we be doing? Should we be rehearsing this?"

This actually isn't all that different from the marketing experts who've been saying all along, especially about Bud Light, that in an effort to be inclusive, they excluded their customer base. In one way or another, Target and the Dodgers violated this marketing best practice as well. So, why didn't someone on the marketing teams at any of those companies raise a question about this: Why are we endorsing radical queers, when our customer base is middle America?

The answer is simple enough. Even if people in marketing at any of those places were familiar enough with best practices in the field, or for that matter in crisis management or contingency planning, they were smart enough to know they'd be sent to HR for counseling if they questioned anything related to inclusive. They weren't going to die on that hill, especially when nobody was going to listen no matter what they said. The only practical strategy would be to keep their heads down and let it all be resolved at levels well above their pay grade when the whole thing played out.

This actually goes to the little joke that a good corporate contingency planner keeps an updated resume off site at all times, as I certainly did. But even in a worst-case scenario where the company goes belly-up due to management miscalculation over a crisis, the one thing you can't do when you interview with a prospective new employer is claim credit for trying to tell them theyl were making a mistake -- that would simply identify you as a troublemaker.

Let'd go to another crisis management best practice that was also in yesterday's link, but that I didn't quote:

As any situation begins to get heated, remember to stay cool and think twice before acting.

I can only surmise what went on in the Dodgers' front office when, first, they discovered that they'd offended their customer base by announcing they'd give the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence a hero award during Pride Night, only then to find they'd offended a bunch of radical queers and others who aren't in their customer base by withdrawing the invitation. The result has been a panic of apologies, counterapologies, disinvites, and undisinvites. It's left the Dodgers with no credible strategy to end the controversy.

The basic question someone there should have posed, much earlier, should have beenm "Pride Night? What problem are we trying to solve?" On one hand, that would have avoided what could well now become an existential crisis for the Dodgers brand. On the other hand, the guy who posed that question would probably have been sent to HR for counseling on the spot.

There are probably a few people at the Dodgers who had the sense to keep their mouths shut and wait for the problem to be resolved at a level much higher than their own pay grade. But whether any other corporations learn anything from Bud Light, Target, and the Dodgers strikes me as doubtful indeed.