But if what the anti-Miers crowd says here is true, nothing could be better than having the democrats slash this nominee. She's "established" her "moderate" credentials be being relentlessly attacked by all on the right, so if the dems destroy her Bush would have "no choice" but to send up a more solidly conservative heavyweight -- and he could argue that he tried to mollify the democrats and they stabbed HIM in the back.
i'm not arguing (as some have on FR) that this might be Bush's actual strategy, or that it would be good. I'm just saying that, in the realm of things I would be worried about if I was opposed to this nomination, I would NOT be worried that she was so weak the democrats would destroy her -- that would instead be my fervent hope.
I think Harriet Meirs is as conservative as they come. There was much disinformation about her earlier today. Check out this thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1496108/posts
There'd be collateral damage to the President if she were humiliated and rejected. Impossible to say whether that's better or worse than having her on the bench.
For example, if the nomination ends in a massacre, maybe the Dems will gain seats in '06; maybe the majority; and then what if two more Supreme Court justices retire or pass away in '07 or '08? The President will have lost an opportunity to shape the court for a generation, with four conservative appointments. Instead, he'll have to nominate people acceptable to the Democrats.
I'm very skeptical of this choice he has made, but I do believe she is about as conservative as he is, which is not saying much. So maybe he never would have shaped the court as conservatives would prefer, but still, it cannot be a good thing for him to lose any more political capital. We are probably looking at the high tide for Republicans in the Congress, as it is; we'll be lucky if we can sustain it through another election cycle.