Informed Speculation

You’ll have to read the piece for all six, but I do want to highlight a few things:

I think their [conservatives'] split with Bush is ill advised, counterproductive, and in some ways childish. But there’s no doubt it’s happening and it’s serious.

…Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration. Given this kindling, it took only the spark of the Miers nomination to ignite a conservative backlash.

Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He’s also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an “ownership society.” On some issues–partial privatization of Social Security is the best example–he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.

…Bush is down. His job approval is at an all-time low. He is under fire, unfairly, for his handling of the Katrina rescue and recovery. His bid this year for Social Security reform failed. All of which has provoked the classic Washington response to the plight of a political foe in trouble: kick ‘em while they’re down. Many conservatives, who rarely complained when Bush was riding high, have joined in the kicking.

Barnes is dead on here, and whether you support or oppose Miers is hardly the point. The point is the unbelievably harmful overreaction, and the quickness to jettison George W. Bush entirely. 2006 is looking more and more dangerous, and there will be plenty of blame to go around if it turns into a Republican disaster. The President’s Republican critics should, of course, be free to oppose Miers, but they should think long and hard about tactics and rhetorical excess as they relate to the next election cycle.