it's not just buchannan and kristol. People just like to cite those because it's 'acceptable' to dislike them.
The names of prominent commentators who have come out against the nomination in one way or the other is astounding. Limbaugh, limbaugh, steyn, coulter, malkin, frum, almost all of national review, will, noonan, and on and on and on.
And the white house and the party is ticking of their best weapons for what? A mediorcre, unknown nominee that would never had been named by any other president, and wouldn't have been picked by GWB if they didn't know each other for years?
In respect to Limbaugh, remember he likes a good fight and has been itching for a down and out political brawl over SCOTUS. Ditto for Coulter. Ditto for Malkin. As for Frum, he has never gotten over being fired as a speech writer for claiming he wrote the "axis of evil line." Steyn isn't even an American and he makes a good living looking and writing for controversy understandable to a Canadian-UK-American audience.
My point is, these people all have agendas that may or may not influence what they think about Miers. My personal guess is the one thing not mentioned much is the fact that the President appreciates her character including her Evangelical beliefs. Nothing frightens the intelligentsia, left or right, then having a knuckle dragging, Neanderthal Jesus Freak in SCOTUS. In fact, I have yet to find anyone who can tell me when was the last time we had a "primitive" Protestant (Evangelical) in SCOTUS.
People are avoiding discussing the pros and cons of the relgious issue because it is so fraught with controversy no one can easily make political hay out of it.