Welcome to Blogspirit and the 4GWosphere, Jason!

Jason, an online friend and one of the guys behind South Dakota Politics, has started a blogspirit blog to chronicle his research into the American Indian Movement. I found him when he linked to my article on 4GW and Mao, where he commented:

Thus the question, Can 4GW apply to the tactics used by AIM? AIM may have been trying to start a type of 4GW conflict, which uses civilians as “warriors.” 4GW’s purpose is to destroy the enemy’s will, not his ability to fight. Proactive attacks and outrages are designed to create sympathy for the warriors.

He posts at a perfect time, as Younghusband tries to answer similar questions about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Jason, welcome to Blogspirit and the 4GW blog community! Don’t forget to cheak out ZenPundit, especially his articles on Thinking (I, II, III), Defense in the National Interest, Global Guerrillas, New Persuasion, Organic Warfare, Phatic Communion, or me on Christian 4GFaith (I, II, III), anti-Iraqis, Christian Conservatives, and Neocons, PISRR, the generations of war, and 5GW.

Plus, he loves Piled Higher & Deeper!

Long live aimlog, Thesis Writing in Progress!

Barnettic, and Rovian, Reasons to Oppose Miers

“Base “uprising” gives “spine” to R Senate – Meirs withdrawals,” by a reader, private email, 9 October 2005.

Miers Remorse: Conservatives are right to be skeptical.,” by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 10 October 2005, http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007384 (from The Corner).

The tough choice on Miers: competency versus ideology (as in, be careful what you wish for),” by Thomas Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog, 10 October 2005, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002440.html.

The blogosphere has been awash in criticism of Harriet Miers, Bush’s impossibly bad choice for Supreme Court justice. Now, the post that took me from skeptical of Harriet to outright hostile

The problem is, of course, that Miers seems to have so little to recommend her. Hell, Bush picks Oprah tomorrow and she sweeps in with HER real-world experience, but Miers comes off as a non-judge David Souter, picked for the doubleplusgood attributes of being both Bush loyalist and having no written legal record of note. Not a great combo.

Justice nominees usually get rejected in a fit of pique, and Bush has certainly earned his from both Left (for all the usuals) and Right (for disappointing them with both Roberts [whether most realize it yet or not] and–far more so–with Miers). What the opposition to her nomination have going right now is powerful: a passionate out-of-power party and too few in-power-party stalwarts to stand at the nominee’s defense.

This could get really ugly, but I am loathe to wish for something better, because I feel that, in Miers’ defeat, we’ll set the stage for a truly right-wing justice in her place. In my mind, centrists and Dems the country over were lucky to see O’Connor and Rehnquist so “moderately” replaced. Roberts will be a good herder of cats, I believe, and Miers was unlikely to do much harm, being an intellectual lightweight.

If Miers goes down, and I now believe it is entirely possible (when the Wills and the Kristols abandon you and the Left is gearing up, you’re in real trouble), we may all end up being happy with Roberts’ tendency to rule as a real centrist (which I believe he will), because what we end up with post-Miers may be fairly hardcore.

So two TPMBesque reasons to support Miers

  1. Miers can’t do the job well.
  2. Whoever comes after Miers will be more conservative

Listen to Thomas Barnett! Defeat Miers!

Of course, maybe it’s a conspiracy…

It is traditional for nominees to remain silent until their confirmation hearings. But previous nominees, while unable to speak for themselves, have been able to deploy an array of people to speak persuasively on their behalf. In this case, the White House spin team has been pathetic, dismissing much of the criticism of Ms. Miers as “elitism” or even echoing Democratic senators who view it as “sexist.” But it was Richard Land , president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who went so far as to paint Ms. Miers as virtually a tool of the man who has been her client for the past decade. “In Texas, we have two important values, courage and loyalty,” he told a conference call of conservative leaders last Thursday. “If Harriet Miers didn’t rule the way George W. Bush thought she would, he would see that as an act of betrayal and so would she.” That is an argument in her favor. It sounds more like a blood oath than a dignified nomination process aimed at finding the most qualified individual possible .

So is the White House setting Miers up for a fall? A tdaxp reader thinks so, echoing Barnett…

Is this another “Rovian” move? It is the Republican Senators that don’t have the stomach for a knock down fight to get “true” conservative on the SCOTUS.
GW isn’t running again, but they are. If Miers withdrawals then it will not be Pres. Bush forcing this fight on the “gentleman’s club”. (Sadly, the Republicans have expanded the definition of gentleman to include wimp.)
What could Arlen do then?
Several columnists/bloggers have written that it was clear that the Senate did not want the all out war necessary for passing the “Constitutional Option”.
Well, now the base has spoken.

Hopefully it’ll turn out that way, but I don’t think so. Bush is too loyal to his friends. Sadly.