It is becoming very clear that a deep division (perhaps a split?) is forming on the right-side of the political spectrum.

I resembles nothing more than the early stages of an ugly divorce, where the two parties still aren’t sure they hate each other even though it is obvious to those not involved.

While the agenda of the George W. Bush administration claims to be Conservative, the actual policies implemented and choices made that have resulted in expanding the budget at a faster rate than even the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, not exactly a paragon of fiscal restraint, while simutaneously increasing the powers of government to intrude into private lives and pushing to make the changes permanent.

The nomination of Harriet Miers to fill the position of US Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Conner is the wedge cleaving those on the Right into those who support the policies and statements of the administration regardless of the actual outcomes (aka the cheerleading brigade) and those who question why the outcomes are not the ones that Conservative philosophy has consistently called for over the past few decades.

The “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” line from the White House that Ms. Miers will “rule correctly,” along with a strong message from President George W. Bush to “trust me,” are not playing well in Peoria, nor in many other places where Conservatives expected one of the shining lights of right-wing thought to be nominated.

The internecine conflict may end up to be as damaging as those that are the usual course of affairs on the left-wing, with one of the latest examples that of a Conservative critiquing the policies of the current administration as a betrayal of the Reagan legacy.

While many proclaim their detestation of labeling people by political leanings, the very process of establishing a systematic method for identification (in other words, labeling) was fundamental in establishing many of the branches of science, most profoundly biology, where the Linnean taxonomy of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species hierarchy helped to systematize and make into a true science something that had been merely a descriptive hobby before.

So, in our current state of disarray, where Liberals are not liberal, Conservatives are not conservative, the left-wing is a cacophany of dissonant voices, and the right-wing has the very wedge issue they formerly used to attack others dividing themselves, what labels can we use in our taxonomy?

Who changes their name?

What do we label those who support President George W. Bush with no regard to fundamental philosophical inconsistencies? (I find the label “mindless cheerleaders” rather unsatisfying…)

What do we label those who have a fundamentally self-consistent view of the world that was formerly described as “Conservative” but who now disagree strongly with the nominally “Conservative” Bush administration?

What do we label those who are currently called the “religious right” who hold many positions that are contrary to what a true Conservative would say is acceptable to his beliefs?

The old labels no longer apply, which is a huge clue to those paying attention that there is some kind of fundamental shift in attitudes, beliefs, philosophies, whatever you want to term them, is underway.

The difficulty lies in prognosticating the effects and outcomes of this change.

I am still thinking about it, but at least I recognize the intrinsic alteration of the landscape. How many others are willing to see it?

You reap what you sow:

In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that once the criminal questions are settled, he and his wife may file a civil lawsuit against Bush, Cheney and others seeking damages for the alleged harm done to Plame’s career.

If they do so, the current state of the law makes it likely that the suit will be allowed to proceed — and Bush and Cheney will face questioning under oath — while they are in office. The reason for that is a unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that Paula Jones’ sexual harassment suit against then- President Clinton could go forward immediately, a decision that was hailed by conservatives at the time.

Those considering “going nuclear” on the filibuster, even solely on judicial nominations, may want to keep this lesson in mind.

—

Link from a comment by CaliBlogger left at The Moderate Voice.

The Bull Moose summarizes quite well my feelings on the major event of today in Iraq:

Whatever one’s views on the wisdom of the war, this is a good day. A former tyrant is in the dock. The man who started two wars and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people faces justice. You don’t have to be a conservative, neo-conservative, hawk, Republican or Bush lover to love this moment. Indeed, progressives should celebrate when a mass murderer must meet his fate.

—

In the past decade, two horrific tyrants have been brought to justice by American power - Milosevic and now Saddam. This sends a powerful message to other brutal rulers - there is a price to be paid for tyranny. That is a good development in the march of civilization.

All credit must go to the American soldiers. Their heroic sacrifices have brought about this day. And the courage of Iraqis who brave terrorist threats to bring justice to this criminal is also impressive.

There have been many errors committed in the conduct of this war. But this is an event to celebrate. The first tyrant in the Arab world has been brought to trial. It may be the beginning of a new day.

I find little to add.

…making sure no one who isn’t explicitly authorized to is having sex: