Outlook: On the Right, Civil War

Well, George Bush may finally have succeeded where Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and other Democrats have failed. With his Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, he has cracked the Republican monolith and split the party activists who helped make today's Republican monopoly of the White House and Congress possible. All over the op-ed pages and in the blogosphere, conservatives are in full-throated cry, with most rebelling over what they see as Bush's betrayal of everything they've worked for over the last two decades while others try to defend the president's choice. On the right, in fact, it's civil war, says Ed Morrissey of the conservative blog Captain's Quarters in his Sunday Outlook article. And that could spell bad news for the GOP in next year's mid-term elections.

Morrissey was online Monday, Oct. 10, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his article, How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right and the war in the blogosphere over the Miers nomination.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Ed Morrissey: Welcome to the Washington Post webchat. My name is Edward Morrissey, and I'm delighted to work with you. I'll be answering questions as best as I can -- I hope to get to them all if I have time. So let's start!

_______________________

College Park, Md.: What exact concerns do the Republicans have over the nomination of Harriet Miers? And what are the concerns of the Democrats over her nomination? Thanks.

Ed Morrissey: The exact concerns are that we have no exact idea what she stands for -- she is yet another "stealth" candidate that a Republican president with a GOP Senate should not need to offer. It isn't a question so much of specifics as it is the fact that conservatives see so many more qualified jurists, who have demonstrated their credentials clearly and courageously, getting passed over yet again for another "trust me" nominee.

As for the Democrats, I think they know that Miers is the best they can expect from this administration. I don't think they can lose one way or the other with Miers.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: What do you think is the reason President Bush chose Hariett Miers? Did he need to go down in history as a President who nominated a woman?

Ed Morrissey: I think Harry Reid offered up Miers' name and Bush saw an opportunity to sneak a stealth conservative, in his opinion, by the Senate. With his track record of appointing Cabinet officers with such diversity, I don't think he thought of a female nominee in terms of legacy.

_______________________

Syracuse, N.Y.: Does she have the "right stuff?" She's certainly not ivy league material.

Ed Morrissey: It's important to remember that there are no qualifications for Supreme Court justice; it's whomever pleases the President and can get confirmed by the Senate. That said, no one can seriously argue that she presents the best candidacy for the position.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: The issue involved in the President's nomination of Harriet Miers should not focus on whether she will or will not be a conservative on the Supreme Court. The sad truth is that she lacks the "gravitas"to be considered for this esteemed position. The President aggravates the situation by saying "she was the most qualified person available". There are a myriad of fine Conservative and moderate candidates- men, women, and minorities that far surpass Ms. Miers'"qualifications". Ms. Miers should step aside, or have her name withdrawn. The Court at present is a sea of mediocrities. The notable exceptions being the eccentric Scalia and the yet untested Roberts. Surely we do not need another cipher to join this exalted body.

Ed Morrissey: That's pretty much the position of most conservatives who object to the nomination. It's more about process than results, and so far this has fallen short, possibly on both.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Sorry to disappoint you but this just isn't that big of a rift among conservatives. The new Chief Justice was a big enough win on the Court. There are far bigger issues, like terrorism, that are uniting Republicans.

Ed Morrissey: You may be right; we won't know until next year to see if this has fractured the base badly enough to start losing close elections. But why would the White House take that chance?

_______________________

Morrilton, Ark.: Why is an inquiry not being launched into the comments made by James Dobson on his response to the Harriet Miers' appointment? If, in fact, a person or persons unknown were doing "back door dealings" on pre-existing laws already in place by past judges would this not be grounds to nullify the appointment.

Ed Morrissey: Arlen Specter says he will address this during the hearings. I'd certainly be interested in hearing Dr. Dobson explain this a bit more.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Morrissey, I just don't believe it. I am absolutely certain that the supposed discord within the Right is a smokescreen, designed to make centrists and those on the left believe that, just maybe, Miers is a reasonable candidate, or else the far-rights wouldn't object.

Can you provide literally any evidence to the contrary?

Ed Morrissey: Well, the Washington Post certainly has covered enough conservatives speaking out against it, including its own George Will whose column carries considerable weight. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that we all exist as a phenomenon of Karl Rove's "evil genius".

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: It is a well-known open secret that Republican national operatives do not want Roe v. Wade overturned, as they realize this will wake up the political left and would likely move the nation back towards the Democrats. How can the political right trust a Republican organization that will give them lip service but desperately does not wish to deliver on its promises?

Ed Morrissey: It's so well known that none of us have heard it. They want Roe v Wade overturned and the issue given back to the legislature, where it belonged all along.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: To what extent are Senator McCain and his Gang of Fourteen responsible for Bush selecting stealth nominees to the Supreme Court? Is McCain on record as unwilling to support Conservative jurists with a considerable track record?

Ed Morrissey: In my opinion, they bear primary responsibility. I argued in May that they made Supreme Court nominations almost impossible with that compromise, and this is the proof. I would suggest that most of them would feel uncomfortable trying to push through a Michael Luttig, despite his exceptional credentials.

_______________________

Franklin, Tenn.: I have to wonder whether its Harriet Miers' choice of religion to which those on the right object: She converted to Catholicism to join a Christian church that, along with churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ, is derived from the Restoration movement of the later 18th, early 19th centuries that rejects man-made creeds, conventions, and dogmas. Accordingly these traditions have no episcopacy or convention that makes policies for all members and permits individual believers to make their own decisions in cases where there is no explicit Biblical text. The Christian Restoration tradition also insists (unlike Southern Baptists) that adult full-immersion baptism is required for salvation. Factions within the Baptists and Catholics refer to this tradition disparagingly as "Campbellites" and have attacked the Christian Restoration traditions for over a century. Given that much of the right wing religious power is drawn from Catholics and centrally organized evangelical traditions with specific creeds and dogmas, could it be that their hostility is derived from their traditional hostility to Christian churches?

Ed Morrissey: I think you fundamentally misunderstand the religious aspects of the conservative movement. The Evangelicals have been more a part of this movement than the Catholics, who really only started arriving in the last two election cycles. Catholics tend to be more liberal on most issues except abortion and the death penalty. Reams of polling have made that pretty clear.

_______________________

Glendale, Ariz.: Why do some apologists for this nomination keep assuring the public that it is a fine choice because Bush knows that Harriet Miers will vote the way he would. I thought a Supreme Court Justice should be impartial and not be representing anyone on the Court. Either we are being told by the right that the nominee should be completely acceptable to the Far Right, or, that we should take it on trust the HM will do the bidding of the President. Neither alternative is acceptable. Comments please.

Ed Morrissey: I don't think that it's unacceptable for a nominee to reflect the philosophies of the president that appointed her. I do think it's unacceptable to have so-called "litmus tests" on specific issues. What we have here is a lack of any evidence of the former in the public record.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Last week, I heard an interesting theory about Harriet Miers. It goes something like this. Knowing that a Judge Brown or a Judge Owen would have a difficult time getting approved from the left, President Bush sends up a Harriet Miers, knowing that she is not the best qualified jurist available. Both sides would have issues with her qualification and refuse to approve her.

At that time, President Bush selects a Judge Owens or Brown and there would be pressure on the senate not to rebuke a second nomination.

Any chance that this is what's happening?

Ed Morrissey: Well, maybe, but that's a hell of a risky move under any circumstances. I suspect that the Democrats will take Miers anyway, regardless of what happens with the Republicans; they won't get a better candidate from Bush.

_______________________

Newport News, Va.: Describe the Republican "Base"- it appears that it has always been fragile, and since Ohio the Evangelicals whom we are told, won it for Bush are owed something. Is this the first shot of the Evangelical take over of the Republican Base? Have the Weekly Standard neocons etc been weakened?

Ed Morrissey: Describe the base -- you have a wide range of economic and foreign-policy conservatives, religious conservatives, neo-libertarians, social moderates, all trying to live with one another. All of them want issues addressed in various ways. The issue with Supreme Court nominees unites most factions -- which is why the Miers nomination creates such a disruption within the base.

_______________________

Oxford, Miss.: What do you see as the Achilles heel in the Miers nomination? Is it the specter of cronyism (particularly in the wake of Katrina)? Is it the juxtaposition of this rather odd choice with the invincible choice of John Roberts? Is it the fact that the administration has so far been unable to defend Miers except by repeating "trust me" in a time when the administration has spent all of its trust capital?

I'm sure the answer is a combination of these and other factors but what do you think is the BIGGEST reason this nomination has backfired so fiercely?

Ed Morrissey: First off, I hope that you and your family are doing well in Mississippi after Katrina's devastation.

The true Achilles heel is the weak record of the candidate after all the hard work done by conservatives to win the White House and the Senate at the same time, so that stealth or "trust me" candidates should no longer be necessary. Now we've had two in a row; Roberts also had a thin trail, but he had such a great track record as a legal scholar and SC attorney that his candidacy stood on its own. Miers is weak, unscholarly in terms of legal opinions, and we have no reason to suspect that she's anything more remarkable than a darned fine attorney. That's an accomplishment in itself, but one shared by thousands of others.

_______________________

Lansing, Mich.: If by some chance that Ms. Miers's nomination is withdrawn or defeated by Republicans, and President Bush is forced to nominate a Justice that has a clear paper trail against abortion, doesn't it undercut his own argument that he has no "litmus" test of judges?

Ed Morrissey: No more so than those justices who have a clear trail of approving Roe v Wade having passed a litmus test with Bill Clinton. Did it make the difference in their nomination? Perhaps, or just maybe RvW fits in with their overall philosophy of government.

If Miers doesn't get confirmed, expect to see Luttig or McConnell next.

_______________________

Brevard, N.C.: How can this nomination be anything but be a lose - lose for conservatives? If she bombs during the hearings the President will be seen as inept and this will further erode his support. If she is impressive and is confirmed, many conservative pundits will be seen as inept and therefore less influential .....

Ed Morrissey: I'm not terribly concerned with lasting damage on the conservative punditry. They're paid to give opinions and they can afford to get a few wrong. Supreme Court openings come rarely, and one can't bat .500 and consider him/herself successful. If Miers turns out brilliant, then many of us will have little problem retracting our criticisms -- but we'll still wonder when we get to name explicit conservatives to these posts.

_______________________

Maine: Ed,

You nailed the issue early in your op-ed piece: since when is evangelicism synonymous with conservatism? You can be one and not be the other.

I may be alone in this sentiment, but I think the worst thing the GOP has done is make itself beholden to the Christian right in all its incarnations. It may win elections, but it has destroyed the party. (So you can guess which side of the civil war I'm on.) Do you think the two groups should go their separate ways? With a massive break on the right, the barely held together left could collapse as well. They seem to only exist to battle the unified GOP. With one gone...

Ed Morrissey: No, I don't think it's necessary for the GOP to push the Evangelicals outside of the tent at all. I think that people get involved in politics to ensure that their values get represented in the drafting of law and policy, and the Evangelicals have every right to participate in that process, as Republicans, Democrats, or whatever. The Evangelicals don't want to change the country into a theocracy run by a high priesthood.

I do think that when the White House and its defenders have to point to a nominee's religion as a primary reason for its own supporters to trust in her, then that nominee has little else going for her and should withdraw. Beldar has done a far better job defending Miers on his blog than anyone out of the White House. Why is that?

_______________________

Steubenville, Ohio: I'm from Ohio, the state that elected our current president. John Kerry gave a campaign speech in my town, where due to a strong union presence he expected to be welcomed. Instead, hundreds of people came out armed with pro-life signs and booed a visibly shaken Kerry. They did not do this because they supported any other major policy of the current administration except the promise to appoint solid conservative judges. There is nothing like life-issues to motivate the conservative base to be politically involved. The conservative base feels like it has been spit upon right now. The whole purpose of all its efforts has been betrayed.

If the avoidance of a conflict is so important to "trench-dwelling dogfaces" then I guess I fail to understand the whole purpose of democratic politics. Bush has governed like LBJ, not like a conservative. On only one issue did we ask for something different than what a Democratic president would give us. The Establishment in this country uses the words "liberal" and "conservative" as tools to comfort us peons in the citizenry. We feel like we have a choice on election day because the rhetoric and promises differ between the candidates. The argument that we are just supposed to lie down and take it is an argument that democracy means nothing, and we should just be content to be ruled by an elite with its own set of values, unable to make the basic important decisions that politics can and should resolve--on the local or state level. Why can't states decide their own policies on life issues? Because five elites say they cannot; how contemptuous of the democratic process and the ability of citizens to agree on solutions peacefully!

I want to suggest that Bush and the elite Republicans know exactly what they are doing. I suggest that they do not want Roe overturned, as it is a handy vote-getter without the necessity to make any hard decisions. Why would anyone give up such an easy way to gain power? It is naive to think they would. And it only enables this hubris and contempt for Americans to say that it's in the greater good of the party not to fight. The good of the party is the good of the elites who control the party. We here out in the country want policy--it's secondary which party gives it to us.

Ed Morrissey: These are great points, Steubenville, and it shows how central the Supreme Court nominations are to maintaining the base. I think the White House seriously miscalculated with this nomination.

_______________________

White Bluff, Tenn.: In view of all the upheaval, did Zell Miller know what he was talking about?

Ed Morrissey: Zell came aboard for the policy on the war on terror -- which I still support. I don't think Zell much fears "upheaval"; in fact, it seems to amuse him.

_______________________

San Jose, Calif.: My theory is that Rove was too busy with his legal problems to make this decision. So, this strikes me as the very first Bush decision; with all previous significant decisions made by Rove, Cheney or others in the administration. Since it is a primarily Bush decision - it is an incompetent one. All his "accomplishments" have been a product of his family and his handlers. All his personal business decisions were disasters. So, it can't be a surprise that he made such a stupid pick.

I no clue about Price Bush's judicial philosophy. I think he's too stupid to understand constitutional law. But, perhaps you could enlighten us on Bush's understanding of the law.

Ed Morrissey: We hear this a lot, and we used to hear this during the Reagan administration. I think Bush makes these decisions himself, with plenty of input from a trusted set of advisors -- just like any other President. Referring to him as Prince Bush says much more about you than it does about him.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: It seems to me that this nomination has separated party loyalists (those who look at George W. Bush as George the Third) from Conservative thinkers. At least that's the way it seemed when listening to Brit Hume (representing the party loyalist) versus Bill Kristol (representing the passionate Conservative) yesterday on Fox News. What do you think?

Ed Morrissey: This was what I tried to get at with my essay -- there are those who see this in terms of party pragmatics versus philosophical purity, and the two will always easily separate (in either party) on difficult choices. What makes this more senseless is that it *shouldn't* have been a difficult choice; there were so many better candidates for the position Bush could have selected. Any number of them would have left his base united and ready to fight toe-to-toe for confirmation, if needed.

Why pick Harriet Miers under those conditions? Even the loyalists don't really answer that point, except for Hugh Hewitt, who does argue that Miers has had such a ringside seat for the legal construct of the war on terror that he felt Miers would present a friendly ear on the court when those issues came up.

_______________________

St Peters, Pa.: Hi, and thanks for doing this chat. Two quick questions:

1. Do you really think there is a realistic chance that Miers will not get confirmed (either by withdrawing or by getting voted down)?

2. Isn't part of the reason conservatives are so angry about this pick the fact that Miers is replacing a swing vote? Roberts was a fine pick because he managed to come off as basically a clone of the justice he was replacing. But replacing the swingy O'Connor with a rock-ribbed conservative was a dream for the conservative movement, right?

I'm a liberal, for what it's worth and don't much care for Miers either (because she seems unqualified), but I can perfectly understand why conservatives are angry.

Ed Morrissey: You're welcome!

1. Not much, no. I think the Democrats will see it in their interest to confirm Miers, even if the Republicans don't.

2. Partly yes, to be sure, but it is more than that -- after all, Miers might well be another Thomas. We don't know, and after having put all the effort into getting a solidly GOP Senate and a Republican president, it's insulting to the conservatives to imply that they don't represent the mainstream.

_______________________

Manassas, Va.: Ed, I'm not an insider so all I can do is surf the Web--but from the looks of the right side of the blogosphere, the more conservatives learn about Harriet Miers the less they like her politically--the latest incoming on the radar screen being Polipundit.

( Personally, Miers is looking like what an old guy like me would call a pro-life Rockefeller Republican.)

Do you agree that if there's any momentum, it's shifting against Miers? Does the White House get it yet, and if they do, what can they do about it?

-Christopher Fotos/PostWatch

Ed Morrissey: Hi, Chris, and thanks for your question.

I saw that Polipundit switched over to the "Rebel Alliance" today. As more comes out about Miers, the more switching around we'll see. The divisions won't remain firm, and people should be keeping an open mind.

Does the White House "get it"? Maybe after the disastrous meeting with Ed Gillespie, they do. If not, then they need better analysts working on this issue.

_______________________

Manhasset, N.Y.: Concern over qualifications is obvious. Why is the blow up more over beliefs when it would be expected they would be known to President Bush?

Ed Morrissey: Because they're not much known to the base. She hasn't published, she hasn't written opinions due to a complete lack of judicial experience, she has shown little interest in constitutional issues, and she doesn't even have that many appellate cases under her belt as a litigator. Why should we pass on so many more jurists who have courageously written about conservative judicial philosophy and constitutional issues to select Miers?

_______________________

McLeod, Mont.: Wouldn't Miers have to recuse herself from any SCOTUS arguments about Gitmo, the War on Terror, anything having to do with this administration, even if the case came, say 20 years from now, since she has been a part of crafting these policies?

If so, was this pick maybe partly an insurance pick for Bush's legacy, i.e., putting one justice on the bench who certainly cannot rule against, say, the Bush administration policy/legacy of preemptive war?

Ed Morrissey: Good question, and one that has no clear answer. One would presume that anything she personally wrote would create a requirement for recusal. However, it is up to each individual justice to decide for themselves whether to recuse from a case on any basis.

I would say, though, that the argument would be that since Supreme Court justices almost never recuse themselves, it might make more sense that she would be there to actually vote to uphold those policies, as opposed to recusing herself and taking up space that could have gone to a "Nay" vote.

_______________________

Lincoln, Neb: A group of right wingers launched an 18 million dollar PR group to warn the U.S. about liberals prejudging and slandering Bush' Supreme Court nominees, but the reality is that the right wing is the group prejudging Miers. Isn't this whole thing akin to the Mayor of New Orleans whining about Bush after he supported Bush in 2000? Nagin got what he voted for in 2000. Now the right wing whines because they just found out there is no Easter Bunny. They supported Bush over McCain and now they get what they voted for in 2000.

Ed Morrissey: Both sides have used the Supreme Court openings to raise tons of money, and I'd say both sides have been equally disappointed in the opportunities presented to spend that cash.

Conservatives have not exactly held their tongues when it came to criticizing this administration about federal spending, the McCain-Feingold Act, pork-barrel politics, and other issues. But the two issues that surpass party pragmatism is the war on terror and the federal judiciary. That's always been the case.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I don't agree with you that only social conservatives who wanted to sway the Supreme Court got Bush elected. I know plenty of people who voted for Bush who are socially moderate. What makes you think that social conservatives are due something? I think they were just duped and used.

Ed Morrissey: I was talking more about the base; you're correct in that Bush reached past his base to win the elections, where Kerry did not. However, the momentum for the GOP comes out of the base, and one of the few issues that unites the disparate factions of the GOP is reform of the federal judiciary. That cuts across almost every interest group in the GOP. Bush just discounted that with what appears to be a rather thoughtless and superficial pick, at least to the eyes of the conservative base.

Have they been duped and used? Possibly, and it wouldn't be the first time.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: I am glad that you have this opportunity to discuss issues surrounding the Supreme Court nominee. Can you explain why some critics claim Harriet Miers is undistinguished? She has been on the national lists of 100 outstanding attorneys, has a superb record as a senior partner in a large law firm, and when on the Court will have more experience in key areas before the Court such as commercial and corporate law than the other eight members combined.

Ed Morrissey: I was in Germantown two months ago when I visited DC -- a lovely town ...

She has almost no experience in constitutional law, and moreover, appears to have had almost no interest in it during her entire career. She hasn't written much in terms of legal papers or other scholarship. The Court exists to determine the constitutional application of law, not to retry commercial and corporate cases. Why not pick someone who has shown more scholarship and interest -- like Maureen Mahoney, for instance, described as the "female John Roberts"?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Punditry and bloggers aside, there really haven't been that many GOP Senators claiming they won't support her. Sure, some are withholding judgment, but even Brownback hasn't said how he'll vote. Is there really a chance conservatives will vote against their own president's nominees?

Ed Morrissey: Not much, no. I think she'll get confirmed 90-10.

One more question ...

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: Given that most of the Justices on the current Supreme Court have been chosen by Republicans (and that Republicans have been presidents for the majority of the last 40 years), why the angst over this pick? Hasn't the history of Supreme Court picks simply undercut the notion that one can, through "judicious" picking, tilt the court one way or another? I mean, Blackmun (who wrote Roe) was nominated by Nixon.

Ed Morrissey: Good question. The best one can do is to nominate those people who have a track record that approximates the kind of philosophy that matches that of the President. If it hadn't been for a string of "trust me" stealth candidates put forth by Republican presidents, then the base would likely have had no problem, or not as much problem, with Miers. As you rightly point out, the Court consists of a large majority of GOP appointments -- John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. The first four were "trust me" candidates -- and you can see how well that worked out for the GOP.

_______________________

Ed Morrissey: Our time has run out -- I'd love to answer more questions, but I don't want to wear out my welcome. Thank you all for your challenging and thought-provoking questions, and big thanks to the Washington Post for giving me this opportunity!

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.