So what??? You people carry "party loyalty" to a ridiculous level. That's the whole point of Pat's article. Confirm someone because she's good for the country---not just on one man's say-so.
An odd notion, considering that the main objection against Miers has been that she doesn't have an Ivy League sheepskin.
What? Is it the case that liberal snobbishness has infected us to the point where we identify Ivy League graduates with the "good of the country?" One would do better to associate them with the very ruin of it.
Not completely. There's Bush's record plus vouchers from people who have known her plus her obvious ability. If he had nominated someone clearly not appropriate I wouldn't be willing to support him and I do wish he had gone for the fight. It doesn't seem like a particularly smart move though given his poll ratings.
Are you honestly going to try to convince me that Harriet Miers is bad for our country but somehow Ruth Bader Ginsburg was good for our country?