Even worse than it seems

At least a few commentators have drawn the comparison between Harper's cabinet surprises and Dubya's nomination of Harriet Miers to SCOTUS. And the analogy may be accurate in terms of the grassroots reaction within the leader's own party. But the comparison is misleading to the point of unduly flattering Harper when considered in the context of what the leaders had actually promised to do.

When Bush made his nomination, the outrage from within his own party wasn't based on his violation of any explicit promises. In fact, the nomination could at least plausibly be seen as one of Bush's few efforts to actually keep his explicit promises (i.e. some degree of bipartisan cooperation since Harry Reid had suggested Miers for the job, and an absence of "litmus tests" on particular issues).

Sure, there were unseemly overtones in Miers' presence in Bush's inner circle...and there were valid concerns about whether Miers was truly qualified for the job. But the nomination itself did nothing to undermine any of Bush's genuine promises. The backlash from the religious right was the result of an unspoken expectation (which Bush couldn't publicly promise) that any Supreme Court nominee would be at least as reactionary as Antonin Scalia. And while Bush deserves plenty of criticism for meeting the terms of that bargain with his subsequent nominee, he certainly can't be considered to have violated any positive principle in nominating Miers to begin with.

In Harper's case, on the other hand, the situation is reversed. The Cons' entire platform was based on trying to make a change from the Libs' bad habits of doing absolutely anything to stay in power...and his action in luring Emerson (as well as appointing Fortier both to cabinet and to the Senate) violated at least the plain meaning of prominent campaign statements. As a result, it isn't just the Cons' base that is (or should be) up in arms: whether or not they voted for Harper, voters across the spectrum have reason to be angry with the new PM for not even waiting until the end of his first day in office to start ignoring what got him elected.

There's one final key difference based on the nature of the respective actions: unlike with the Miers nomination, there's no way for Harper to make up for his action after the fact. Miers was a loyal enough Bush soldier to be willing to give up her appointment without turning on her nominator in the process, and Bush could at least be seen to meet the far right's expectation when he tapped Alito later on. But even if Emerson were to step aside from the spotlight and into a backbencher role out of some bizarre sense of loyalty to his "worst enemy", Harper's promise to conduct politics differently can't be unbroken.

In sum: as harmful as the Miers nomination was to Bush, there's every reason to think that Harper's actions will be all the more damaging to his party in the long term - and you don't have to take my word for that. The only question now is whether there's enough anger to tempt the opposition parties to move up their plans to bring down Harper, or whether the issue will simply linger for a couple of years before Harper truly faces the consequences.