I read your response and basically I agree. Any nominee is a gamble, but why not trim the odds as much as possible? Picking a known conservative is less of a gamble than picking someone who has never made her opinion public, or had to fight to defend it.
Why do you think it was a gamble for Bush? He has selected justices for nomination over the past five years with this woman. Don't you think he has some idea of her philosophy on how the Constitution should be parsed?
I think it quite possible that we couldn't win the vote with a very published conservative, especially if that candidate could be shown in writing to oppose Roe vs. Wade.
Three senators would definitely vote against that candidate: Cheffee, Snowe, Collins. Right there you have gone from 55-45 to 52-48. Now subtract the support of the cowards, Voinovich and DeWine. That brings you to 50-50.
At that point, all you would need is to lose the vote of Hagel, McCain, or Spector, and the candidate would not be confirmed.
I don't want to pick a fight in the Senate when there is a good chance that the candidate would be defeated. It would set conservatism back a decade or more. In fact, it might cause us to lose Congress.
Why in the world is there this fixation on a fight over the Supreme Court nominee. I am more than willing to have a fight in the Senate, but let's have it on something like taxes, the aid to New Orleans, election laws, immigration, or other important issues.
For the Supreme Court, I will be quite happy to slip in another originalist under the radar.