This is not the result of any strategy. It is a result of having too little courage to do battle with the enemies of the republic.
Let's face it: This is less about Miers' "qualifications" than about the fact that we've been itching for a fight with the left.
After all, no one questions whether a lunatic like Souter is "qualified," do they? No, they don't. And Republicans *never* questioned the "qualifications" of a lunatic ACLU lawyer like Ginsberg. But they're sure raising a stink about it now.
What? Are progressive republicans concerned that Harriet might not find a justification for gay marriage in a penumbra emenating from the Equal Protection Clause?
You're calling the President who put his Presidency on the line to depose Iraq a coward?
You're calling the President who put this nation on the path of a long term war against a fanatical enemy in the far corners of the Earth... when such a maneuver would risk his political future... a coward?
Come again... Tell me how a President who would risk everything to depose a terror-supporting tyrant is too much of a coward to face the Senate?
I think you should analyze the situation from the stand point of the President. What would a fight over a qualified, known conservative have gained us? Especially consider that with the RINOs in the Senate, we would never have won the majority needed for the Constitutional Option.
Nominating a known conservative would be like starting a land war with China. We'd feel awful good about socking it to the Communists, but the people with their hands on the nuclear trigger will balk and we'd be left with warm fuzzy feelings, casualties, and exactly the same situation before the battle.
Reminds me of the European wars... All those battles, all those dead, and the borders almost always ended up exactly where they were before. Useless wars fought because of big egos and too little sense, and no thought for strategy.