I have a hard time just getting over it because it's such an integral part of why I supported Bush so much, and why I believed all of my efforts would pay off.
I think there are legitimate grounds to oppose Miers that aren't ideological. The necessity of her having to recuse herself in matters brought by or against the administration where she either had a direct involvement in the matter or had responsibility for it is a significant issue. She may have to recuse herself in other cases merely because of "an appearance" of impropriety. I've put it simply as what happens when Miers cannot protect us because of her prior work protecting us? It would ironic, to say the least, that Bush's nominee couldn't decide any cases involving recent WOT efforts. What good is she then, especially for all those Security Moms cited as making the difference for Bush in the last election?
There is also the cronyism angle. If I was a dem intent on either making the President look bad or just fishing for leads on more dirt, I'd want to ask Miers about all sorts of things that have happened in the administration since she's been involved in it. If she cannot answer those questions, there may be sufficient room for a pubbie Senator to take a principled stand against her, particularly when combined with the recusal issue and other non-ideological issues, and especially if that rejection is accompanied by a call to nominate someone who will provide the meat that conservatives want.
It can be pulled off. The sad reality is that there are a bunch of complainers all with their self-interests at heart around who just want to vent but don't want to actually commit to doing anything else that would be more productive.
Yeah. I'm not saying you should get over it. Don't. Keep griping. I just think in the end, we have no choice but to confirm her. The alternative is worse.