PR Advice for the Lob-Bee

3 08 2015

Washington, D.C.

Obama be like: ZOMG, the Lob-bee wants to murder my precious Iran deal LOL~!!!!!1

First off, it it was up to me, I would have never even cared enough to negotiate this deal, because I don’t care about the underlying politics either way.  But now that the die is about to be cast, I guess I better throw my chips somewhere on the table.  If I was in the United States Senate, I would vote against it for one reason and one reason only:  The lack of inspections in the deal.  Otherwise, I would vote for it.  Of course, the reason it doesn’t have inspections is because having them would have delayed finalization of the deal, and Obama wanted something ASAP just to have a major foreign relations accomplishment before January 20, 2017.  The only reason why, even in the inexplicably inverted ratification process per the Corker bill, this agreement has a chance of being ratified is because old time pro-Israel Senate Democrats, like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, are stuck in the gravity wells between political party loyalty and tribal loyalty, and in the case of non-Jewish pro-Israel Senate Democrats, stuck between party loyalty and foreign policy loyalty.

But that makes me wonder:  Which PR war room would I rather run?  The pro or the anti?

Maybe looking at the matrix of positives and negatives will help.

Pro-deal

Positives:  With sanctions lifted, the international oil market is dropping like a rock

Negatives:  Lots of secret deals with untrustworthy people, no inspections, legitimizing a religious fanatic regime, quasi-countenancing their getting nuclear ordnance, (even though I don’t think they’re that close to an actual nuclear weapon), no assurances that Russia and others won’t help Tehran along

Anti-deal

Positives:  The more people come to know about it, the less they like it.  Support is dropping like a rock.  The pro-deal negatives are anti-deal positives.

Negatives:  Doing PR work against the deal is going to come off as being a shill of the Lob-bee, there has been a lot of irresponsible paranoid rhetoric coming from both the Israeli and American right about impending nuclear holocaust should Iran actually finish a bomb.

Yes, I’d rather run the anti-deal PR war room.

Here’s the catch.

The anti-deal crowd shouldn’t get cocky.  Yes, the big mo is swinging their way, but by the same token a lot of people, including people who you wouldn’t think, are experiencing Israel fatigue.  I’d advise them not to kvetch about Obama’s supposed anti-Semitism in his complaining about the Lob-bee, no gloating, no arrogance, no spiking the football.  In fact, kinda sorta portray the notion that they think it’s a fundamentally good deal with some flaws that need to be addressed, such as the lack of inspections.  Therefore, lobby the Senate to cast a vote to delay consideration of the deal, not a vote to reject the deal outright.  That way, it would give wavering Democrats who are stuck between party and either tribe or politics to vote against Obama and his deal, but not seem like they’re kneecapping him.   Of course, the vote to delay consideration would be for outward consumption only; in reality, it would be a de facto rejection, because we know that the person of Baraq Obama is the only kind of person who could become President who would ever make such a deal, because of his life history and upbringing and his sympathetic bleeding heart toward Muslims.  He is a one-off as far as modern American Presidents go.  We know that not a one of the major declared Presidential candidates of either party would make this deal, and they’ll take whatever Obama came up with and send it straight to File 13 by January 20, 2017 at 12:01 PM.  So, the Senate will vote to delay the treaty, then drag their heels and hem-haw for the next 536 days, waiting for the clock to run out on the Obama Presidency.

However, being too pushy or arrogant in opposing the deal could swing public sympathy back to Obama’s side.

 

 





Not Much There There

3 08 2015

Ferguson

Long spread in New Yorker about and interviewing Darren Wilson.

Really nothing new, just a retelling of the events, some back story, some editorializing, some historical racism porn.

It does state here that exceedingly few people know where he and his wife live, just a few relatives and friends.  Plain words, like I said in my review of Bell Curve City by Paul Kersey, when he asked why the Oathkeepers weren’t protecting him, that they probably didn’t know where he was, and even if they did know, and were guarding him, they weren’t going to come out and say.  Anonymity and a lot of locked lips are the friends of Darren Wilson.

Unfortunately, I think there’s a chance that this article gave away at least the general proximity of where he is living.





Stock Image

3 08 2015

St. Louis City

stl-std-barber

Okay.





It’s Still Vaporware

3 08 2015

Downtown

Haven’t had news for quite some time on the hypothetical new Rams stadium on the North Riverfront.

A judge on the 22nd has turned back an effort to force a public vote in St. Louis City on any new money or consideration the city spends or allots on it.  Once I get a hold of his legal reasoning, I’ll have more.

The pro-stadium team is doing a victory lap, but I still think they’re kidding themselves, because I still think it’s the CVC’s PR vaporware.  As much as this ruling helps them in terms of the city being able to do its part in a financing scheme, there’s still the state, remember now that King John is no longer House Speaker, and the new Speaker is someone from Poplar Bluff who really isn’t geographically invested in the Rams.  The new House Majority Leader, like I wrote in this space a few days ago, is a Kansas Citian, Mike Cierpiot.  The Senate Majority Leader is from Joplin, and the Senate President Pro Tem is no longer Tom Dempsey from St. Charles, and Ron Richard, the Joplinian in question, is likely to slide in his place.  Richard’s replacement as Majority Leader will probably either be Kehoe from Jefferson City or Wasson from the Springfield area.  So, in very short order, we’ve gone from two very powerful and respected St. Louisans leading the House and Senate, to not a St. Louisan in the bunch of high level leadership.  It was possible that a Diehl-run House and a Dempsey-run Senate would throw cold water on any grassroots rebellion from the back benches to combat Nixon if he pulls out the pen and phone to extend the principal term on the state bonds, but Diehl and Dempsey aren’t there anymore.  The General Assembly will chimp out if Nixon tries that stunt.  Nixon’s only hope now is to logroll with the General Assembly, that he’ll sign the right-to-work bill that they pass in 2016 (I don’t think that they’re going to try to override Nixon’s veto of the same bill they passed this year during next month’s special session), in exchange for the General Assembly not barking when Nixon does the pen and phone on the bonds.  But, I doubt Nixon would sacrifice closed shop for a stadium.

The other big factor that everyone is forgetting here is that the Los Angeles Rams are worth a hell of a lot more than the St. Louis Rams, and the only thing standing in the way of dirt turning in Inglewood is that the FAA needs to sign off on a record of decision that the new structure doesn’t impede LAX traffic, as it’s close enough to LAX to warrant a study.  Kroenke doesn’t need to worry about financing or getting league permission to relocate.

UPDATE 2 PM

First off, the judge was a John Aschroft appointee.

Second, his reasoning is twofold:  One, the city ordinance requiring public votes before city money is used for sports stadia is too vague and therefore unconstitutional, and second, the site of the hypothetical new stadium on the North Riverfront is sufficiently “adjacent” enough to the existing dome and convention center such that it does comply with state law relating to creating the CVC-owned entity that owns and manages the current Edward Jones Come and adjacent convention center, which in turn means that the hypothetical new stadium can fall under CVC control without any new legislation, which in turn probably means that Nixon could almost unilaterally extend the time period of the bond principal, because as the judge ruled today, though the General Assembly would have to appropriate funds for that action, and now that’s the very big and very doubtful question mark, with no St. Louisans in House or Senate leadership.





That’s Not What Obama Is Thinking

3 08 2015

Knoxville

Instapundit lauds the White House’s report on the overuse and abuse of occupational licensure.

Is it because Baraq Obama has had a Damascene moment and become a right-libertarian?

Not so fast.

Let’s jump into the Blogmeister Hot Tub Time Machine (no skinny dipping) and set the dial back 25 years, or more accurately, 24 years 11 months, to see what Sam Francis wrote in the September 1990 issue of Chronicles.  The whole thing is worth reading, but in case you don’t want to read about David Duke, to read things written at the time when he was near the peak of his political ambitions, his absolute peak came a year later when he made the Louisiana Governor runoff, but then he quickly fell off the cliff, skip to the second page of the essay, Page 12 of the edition, and start with the last paragraph of the first column, the paragraph with starts with “Voters,” and read on through to the end of the page, which is also the end of the essay.  The money part therein is the end of the first full paragraph in the second column.

Meaning that Obama’s concern here is that occupational licensure has a disparate impact on minorities, esp. blacks, not that he has seen the right-libertarian light.  Also notice that 25 years ago, lamestream conservative thinkers were themselves peddling what eventually be came to understood as the disparate impact doctrine, in order to formulate an alternative to the Kennedy-Hawkins Bill of 1990, which Bush 41 vetoed, but most of which became the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which Bush signed late that year.

As a bonus, if you want to spend some more time in the Blogmeister Hot Tub Time Machine, here is Sam Francis’s November 1991 essay in the same publication about the same general subject matter. As it turned out, the bill which ultimately became law was more or less the Danforth supposed middle ground alternative between Bush’s demands and the Democrats’ wish list, though as you can read, there was actually no fundamental difference between the two “extremes.” And again, as it turned out, we have the luxury of 23 years and change of 20/20 hindsight of this legislation in action, and while it de facto forced businesses of a certain employee count or greater to have an affirmative action program.





“Why Did They Let Me Graduate From High School?”

3 08 2015

Queens

Because low graduation rates are the bane of any high school and the school’s district.

Great Schools.





Blogmeister On Something

3 08 2015

Your Blogmeister’s Desk

My biggest fan has called me America’s greatest living political scientist.  He would be 100% accurate if “that nobody knows about” was added to that statement.  I’m going to be bringing out those big guns in this post.

We have the first non-positive and in fact relatively negative review of Ann Coulter’s Adios America from someone generally on the non-lamestream right, that being Fred Reed of “Fred on Everything.”  Most of his review is along the lines of “Mexico isn’t as bad as she puts on.”  One might be tempted to say that the only reason he’s defending Mexico is because his wife is Mexican and he lives in Mexico a good percentage of the time.  If anything, that would actually bolster his credibility.  But, that’s not what really interests me about his review.  It’s what he writes at the end:

For example, the subtitle is “The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole.” I picture myself talking to my good left-liberal friend Diana:

Me: “Hey, Di, are you planning to make America into a third-world hellhole?”

Di: “Why, yes, Fred! I’m on the disease-importation committee.”

(snip)

¡Adios America! energetically favors ending immigration to America, a  good idea which will not be adopted, but her unending railing against the Left ensures that the book will be read only by people who already agree with it. How bright is that?

To be fair to Coulter, she skews the Republican establishment, RINOs, and the people we now call cuckservatives in this book, as much as she does the left.

That said, Fred Reed has a really good point here, one that he might not even know how profound it is.

Let’s bring in another weekend editorial on immigration matters, from Mark Steyn.  The lulz of it is:

Trump is full of it, too. But at least he’s full of it in English rather than bullsh*t. Which is what you’re speaking when you talk about “pathways to citizenship” and “comprehensive immigration reform”. They’re Democrat evasions, and the Republican base is entitled at the very minimum to demand Republican candidates who come up with some weaselly duplicitous evasions of their own. A significant section of the GOP base is sick of dialing Republican headquarters and hearing “Press 1 for Spanish, press 2 for consultant-approved claptrap, press 3 for artful straddle, press 4 for all disavowals of last year’s positions, press 5 for endless looped replays of John McCain’s amusing primary-season-only super-butch ‘Build the danged fence!’ commercial, press 6 for live audio feed of John McCain teaching Lindsey Graham how to say ‘Danged!’, press 7 if you know the Spanish for ‘Danged!’, press 8 to hear Jeb Bush say ‘No amnesty, not on my watch, no sirree!’, press 9 to hear Jeb Bush say ‘Viva la danged amnistía!’ If you wish someone to speak to you in non-forked-tongue English, please stay on the line and wait for an operator.”

But what I think is the meat of this is at the end.  Steyn analyzes the public statements of all the Presidential candidates of both parties on immigration including Donald Trump, and he finds that the strongest restrictionism is coming from none other than a Jewish leftist socialist from Vermont by way of Brooklyn and an Israeli kibbutz, that being Bernie “Feel the Bern” Sanders.  Though once again, his voting record belies his rhetoric by a hundred Vermont country miles.

I’m going to mash up Fred Reed’s point and Mark Steyn’s point in order to bring out the big guns.

Why do not any serious well-funded efforts to repeal Social Security and Medicare exist?  Because those who might want to spend a lot of money on such a campaign know that they would only be wasting their money.  And that’s because Social Security and Medicare of some frame, form or fashion has mile wide and mile deep bipartisan multi-ideological support.  Sure, there are always “privatization” plans floated from time to time, but that’s not done out of a mentality that Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t exist, it’s done out of a mentality that Social Security and Medicare Parts A, B and C represent $1.3 trillion of social spending that neither an insurance company nor Wall Street gets a cut of.  It’s just a matter of insurance and Wall Street Super/PACs and allied 527s and think tanks buying politicians, bribing politicians and bastardizing ideologies in order to get a piece of the $1.3 trillion action, not that the $1.3 trillion action shouldn’t exist for the purpose it does.

As long as we’re stuck with democratic republicanism, the only way that money power can be beaten is with mile wide mile deep people power.  Immigration patriotism is already a done deal, signed sealed delivered, for the non-establishment right.  But, per Fred Reed’s implication, the cause isn’t really going to gather the steam it needs to overpower the donor cartel until it sweeps the non-establishment white left.  If that happens, the way it will happen is if Fred Reed’s friend Diana and multitudes like her convince themselves, or others convince them, that their precious left-of-center hobby horse causes are far more hurt by mass non-white immigration than the Democrat Party is electorally helped by it.  At the moment, doctrinaire white liberals think that it helps their pet causes, simply because more mystery meat immigrants means more Democrat voters and more blue team victories, that empower doctrinaire white liberals to enforce the ideology that their elect-a-new-people flock doesn’t like.  Reed’s point is that books like Coulter’s aren’t helping.

Another problem is that any immigration patriotism enacted by a potential right-nationalist-identitarian Presidential administration is undone by the next President that is a liberal or a cuckservative or a centrist establishmentarian.  Everyone knows that you get Social Security and Medicare no matter which button you press on the voting screen, precisely for what I said above:  Mile high, mile deep, bipartisan, multi-ideological.  That’s the way immigration patriotism needs to be. But it’s not going to be that way until the grassroots left takes it up, and they need to take it up on their own volition based on their own concerns.

One can see that there’s enough of a potential for a viable immigration restrictionist white left political space, from things like Oregon’s Measure 88 last November, and the differential between its defeat and the Senate race in Oregon.  Baraq Obama’s worst issue in the polls?  Immigration, and there’s around a 10-15 point differential between his disapproval on immigration and his disapproval overall, meaning that 10-15 percent of the people like him on most things but just not on immigration, and that can only add up to some white liberals.  And other examples, the point being that immigration patriotism’s polling and election results are often better than even immigration restrictionist Republicans and way better than establishment open borders Republicans.

This is why I want Bernie Sanders’s Presidential campaign to go as far as possible.  I want him to be the singular accepted anti-Hillary among Democrat voters, (translation:  Stay out, Biden), and I want him to do it while openly campaigning on the same kind of immigration restriction that he tempted us with in his Ezra Klein interview and simultaneously his standard liberal boilerplate.  I want grass roots white liberals to think the water is safe, nice and warm, and that it’s okay to want patriotic immigration reform and that they can have it and everything else they want at the same time, and they can get immigration patriotism without having to suck it up and team up with troglodytes like yours truly.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,403 other followers