Suppose Bush put up, say, Wilkinson and he got buffeted by the Senate. Clearly and unmistakably, Senate Democrats would be opposing the candidate based on politics and not the merits. The Angry Left was ready to shred Roberts, but it couldn't -- because his record was just too good. You saw how the Democratic senators who feared for their jobs supported him.
Now, you might say, that wasn't the pick that would have changed the balance of the court. True (as far as media perception goes). My answer is ... so what? Does that make our side less correct?
This is why we put up with all the compromises of the past five years. This was it. This was our shot. What did we get? The least qualified candidate since Abe Fortas.
Come on, we're supposed to care about the right way to do things, not just the right outcome. That's what makes us better.
Wilkinson leaked the details of his interview with Bush to the NEW YORK TIMES. If you were Bush would you feel comfortable nominating a person like that?
How will Miers be the "wrong way to do this" if she proves to be a strong conservative Justice? What will be served by putting up a controversial polarizing conservative if the nomination falls through because of a weak Republican majority in the Senate? What will have been served then? That would embolden the democrats and NO conservative would get out of committe. That's a fact.
Because his educational and, yes, career credentials were excellent -- but without anything the Dems could pin the too conservative, anti-Roe label on. He got away with a lot because the most conservative stuff they had on him was done for a Republican administration -- no way to prove it reflected his own views. (Like conservatives, they inferred conservativism, but they couldn't prove it.)