Earlier this week, the Washington Post asked me to write an analysis of the conservative reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination, after a recommendation from Michelle Malkin. It took up a bit of my evenings this week, one of the reasons my output may have seemed a bit slow, but CQ readers should appreciate the result. My essay appears in today's Outlook, titled "How Harriet Unleashed A Storm On The Right":

The president's surprise pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor has ignited a massive debate among his former loyalists, especially in the blogosphere, where I spend a fair amount of time. Wails of betrayal are clashing with assurances of the president's brilliant strategic thinking. Meanwhile, the heavyweights of punditry drop columns like artillery shells into what already may be a conservative civil war. ...

Bush himself ran on the promise that his election would guarantee Supreme Court nominations in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But when he finally got an opening on the court -- whom did he pick? An unknown quantity named John Roberts. After an initial round of puzzlement over this selection, conservatives backed the nomination, even though Roberts never gave any solid indication of whether he agreed with the philosophy of judicial restraint.

It helped that we expected a second opening, which came all too quickly with Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death. But now Bush has presented us with even more of a cipher, one with no demonstrable constitutional scholarship or judicial record, and whose best qualification appears to be proximity to him.

The analysis has the conservatives breaking up into three factions -- the Loyalist Army, the Rebel Alliance, and the Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces. I'm hoping that a lighter touch will help cool down the tempers on all sides and provide Post readers with a taste of the conservative blogosphere when it debates its own. The folks at the Post allowed me to write in any style I wanted, and did a fine job of editing this down to a manageable length.

I will also participate in an hour-long webchat at the Post's site on Monday, 1 pm ET to discuss the article, the nomination, and the blogosphere. I hope to see a few friends as part of that webchat, and I'll update this with a link as soon as I get it. Hope everyone enjoys it!

UPDATE: Bruce Kesler says he's a Dogface, too.

UPDATE II and Bump: Big Lizards -- big-time Dogface, with several links to prove it:

What hurts a party -- indeed, weakens it -- is when it has a strong majority and it still loses a nomination fight. Bush and the GOP were all right during the filibuster wars, but that was because of the wide perception among Republican voters that the Democrats were using improper and unfair tactics, where 41 senators could stop 59 senators from confirming a judge. The GOP repeatedly made the point that if those nominations had actually gone to a vote, each of them would have been confirmed: "we're not losers," the Republicans were saying; "the Democrats are cheating!" In fact, not a single confirmation cloture vote during Bush's presidency has failed to get a majority; each confirmation was blocked by a minority, typically even less than the entire Democratic caucus.

Americans hate cheaters.

But if the anti-Miers camp succeeds in sparking a revolt among six or seven of the most conservative Republican senators, leading to the rejection of Miers despite a strong GOP majority in the Senate, this will put the mark of Cain on the GOP, the scarlet-L for LOSERS. And that, much more than grudging acceptance by the Senate, is what will depress turnout.

How does that work, depressing turnout? The core of the base will vote; they always do; that's part of the definition of "core." But that only accounts for 38% - 40% of the total vote. So where does the other 11% - 13% come from to get to (say) 51%, as Bush got in 2004? It comes from what I call "sunshine voters." These are not party stalwarts but cast their votes depending on how they feel that particular day. This is not the same as "independents," because most of the latter have more-or-less consistent leanings but are unwilling to declare themselves members of either major party. I'm talking about the folks who truly switch their votes from election to election.

If the GOP comes across as Losers, it will be the sunshine voters who vote Democratic, vote for a goofy third-party candidate, or just stay home. They supported Bush in 2004 because he seemed like a winner, in contrast to Kerry, who seemed like a whiner. Americans hate losers just as much as they hate cheaters.

Dafydd has much more on Miers at Big Lizards.

UPDATE III: Brant at SWLiP has a couple of questions for Miers' comfirmations, based on the song, "Yes, We Have No Bananas". (Okay, I was kidding about the song, but he wrote the second question just to torment me.)

UPDATE IV: Hugh has a long, thoughtful, and impressive response, which surprises no one. The only major point of disagreement I have with it is the idea that religion should play a role in selecting a nominee. If that is the case, then Hugh argues for a de facto religious test -- and it is somewhat hypocritical then to complain when others like Schumer use the same test in reverse.

UPDATE V: Michelle Malkin has a great roundup of reaction and further commentary on Miers. Mark Tapscott wants a fourth category.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Three-Part Disharmony:

» More thoughts on the Harriet Miers kerfuffle from Small Town Veteran
After several updates my previous post on this subject is getting a little long. Guess it's time to start a new one closer to the top of the page. Juliette Ochieng has a well thought out post on the Miers [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 1:28 AM

» Captain Ed in the Washington Post from Patterico's Pontifications
Congratulations to Ed Morrissey on his op-ed in the Washington Post this morning, titled How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right. Ed classifies the Republicans discussing the Miers nomination into three groups. I am someone strongly leaning towar... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 5:12 AM

» Blogstorm Hits WaPo from PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science
Ed Morrisey of Captain’s Quarters breaks down the Harriet Miers’ reaction in a piece for WaPo: How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right. He breaks down the camps into three: the Loyalist Army, the Rebel Alliance and the Trench-Dwellin... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 8:37 AM

» Conservative Rebellion Or Civil War from CALIFORNIA YANKEE
Writing in the Washington Post, blogger extraordinaire Ed Morrissey declares: Well, he's finally done it. By nominating White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, George Bush has managed to accomplish what Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 9:47 AM

» Count Me A DogFaced Loyalist from The Strata-Sphere
Ed Morrissey has a great article out today in the Washington Post’s Outlook section. He sees the Miers nomination the way I do in many respects. The president’s surprise pick to replace Sandra Day O’Connor has ignited a massive d... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 10:38 AM

» The Nub from PBS Watch
As an early member of the Rebel Alliance let me say that the Miers nomination is bad politics. ... If there is a genius in this mess, it is Harry Reid. [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 10:57 AM

» Are these dems or republicans? from Cao's Blog
I don’t see how we’re any different than these people now. I am ashamed of conservatives who are beginning to sound, look, act and use the rhetoric of leftists. There was a time when I shared the views of other conservative Christians ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 11:22 AM

» On Harriet-I'll Have To Join Capt's Qtrs. Rebel Al from View From Tonka
I haven't written anything on the latest George Bush nomination for SCOTUS but I've been thinking about it quite a bit. Am I ticked off at the Prez, YES! Do I think the Republican Party has shoved the nose of it's base in the dirt, YES. This is like ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 1:09 PM

» The Harriet Miers 'Loyalist Army' from All Things Beautiful
Ed Morrissey has an excellent article in today's Washington Post describing in the final analysis the three groups the Harriet Miers nomination has inherently formed within the conservative camp: The Loyalist Army, to which I belong, who are supporting... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 2:51 PM

» Miers is Not the Problem from Tapscott's Copy Desk
Me? I'm in the fourth category: "Long-time Loyal GOPer Looking for a New Party." [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 3:17 PM

» Hurricane Harriet from California Conservative
Sweeping across the G.O.P. Ed “Captain” Morrissey has an op-ed running in today’s Washington Post titled, How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right The article begins with irony: Well, he’s finally done it. By nominating Whi... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 4:30 PM

» Captain Ed in WaPo on Miers from The Anchoress
Ed Morrissey has a nice feature in today’s Washington Post A fun and troubling read. It’s fun because in his analysis, Ed has managed to break down the Miers Melee into three distinct groups, characterized as warriors: The Loyalist Army... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 4:38 PM

» Loyalists, Rebels, Dogfaces -- and Cowboys from Big Lizards
As usual, Captain Ed absolutely nails the taxonomy of conservatives who are arguing about the nomination of Harriet Miers... but yesterday, he managed to do so in the Washington Post! "Local boy makes good." Even though I'm based in California... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 7:31 PM

» Wait a second, Pat Buchanan is upset Bush picked Harriet Miers. The pot calls the kettle black! from Independent Conservative
After more review I must say Pat Buchanan has little room to talk! ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 10:17 PM

» Gathering Storm? It's Barely Drizzling. from EckerNet.Com
The Miers hub-bub continues. And we here at EckerNet proudly endorse the Rebel Alliance (I wonder how many dead end... [Read More]

Tracked on October 9, 2005 11:03 PM

» Loyalist Army, the Rebel Alliance, or Trench-Dwell from CDR Salamander
Being that I owe my Americanism to the loosing side (my family has that habit in civil wars – but that is a subject for another day), I have always been a fan of the English Civil War – Roundheads – Cavaliers – Parliament – Puritans - Charles I & II ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 12:35 AM

» Miers Matters To Conservative Republicans from The Moderate Voice
There's little sign that many conservatives' ire and profound disappointment over Pre... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 1:22 AM

» Misunderestimating His Own Base from Watcher of Weasels
Bush is catching all kinds of hell from conservatives over his timid choice of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee.  There are all sorts of reasons for conservatives to oppose her nomination, but I think Jimmie Bise, Jr. sums it... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 2:07 AM

» Bush Nominates Reagan to the Court! from Big Lizards
This will be my last post on Harriet Miers for some days, not because there's not more to say but because I'm tired of talking about it (and I presume most readers are getting more than a little tired of... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 4:43 AM

» Harriet Miers: A Role Reversal from Dignan's 75 Year Plan
Let me recommend this excellent piece in the Washington Post by Ed Morissey of Captain's Quarters on the Miers appointment. Ed does an outstanding job of analyzing the controversy amongst conservatives with one exception. I am wondering if Ed notices... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 10:03 AM

» THE CURIOUS CASE OF HARRIET MIERS from The Heretik
HARRIET MIERS IS REMARKABLE and the case against her is as well. [story] The remarkable woman is well accomplished and the case against her is as well. The well acomplished woman is exceptional and the case against her is [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 10:20 AM

» Trench Dwelling Dog Faces from Everything I Know Is Wrong
There's only one thing I would ad: I think the vast majority of the Loyalist Army is not actually behind the Miers nomination, they are simply doing what they see as their duty, supporting the President. That means that there is no group that truly sup... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 11:47 AM

» Miers and the Decline of the Republican Party from Conservative Musings
I believe that the reason the polls are down for both the President and for Congress is because the party is becoming less and less true to its principles. Why can't we control spending? Why can't we get Supreme Court justice nominees with a solid reco... [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 4:47 AM

» Miers and the Decline of the Republican PartyMiers and the Decline of the Republican Party from Conservative Musings
Captain Ed has written a piece for the WaPo about "How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right". He delineates the sides as: [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 6:31 AM

» Welcome to Steel City Cowboy from Steel City Cowboy
The day I decided to start this blog, I read a post on BigLizards that augmented a post by Ed Morrissey about different kinds of Republicans. Much like the first time I read the Myers-Briggs write up on INTJ's, an A-ha! light went on in my head. [Read More]

Tracked on October 19, 2005 11:24 AM

» Waiting for Anita from Big Lizards
Wo will step forward to be the conservative "Anita Hill?" Fourteen years ago, a specter was haunting Liberal-land... the specter of Clarence Thomas. A conservative black man was nominated to the Supreme Court, and this was anathema to the plantation... [Read More]

Tracked on October 26, 2005 7:10 PM