If Bush had selected Charles Schumer for the seat there are some here who would defend it saying, "He must know something we don't."
Miers today doesn't trouble me nearly as much as what Miers shows every indication of becoming tomorrow: a roll-over liberal appeasing O'Connor clone.
Bush was going to have to fight this battle anyway. If he was determined to name a woman, he should have named Janice Rogers-Brown and let the Democrats beat themselves bloody against her nomination. America would have noticed the grave hypocrisy of the attacks and the Democrats would have paid for it in next year's elections.
And if the Democrats had succeeded in filibustering Rogers-Brown? Then Bush still could have nominated Miers.
He allowed the Democrats to avoid a vigorous self-bashing. Why?
That's the problem. Now it seems that an open advocacy of conservative legal views (JRB, Owen, Luttig, etc.) is a disqualifier whereas open advocacy of ultraliberal views (Ruth Ginsburg's views on polygamy, abortion, death penalty etc.) is OK.