How can you answer that question if the other candidate wouldn't have been confirmed? If he can't get them on the Court, why could they possibly be "better" than O'Conner?
Are you saying that Bush made the decision to go with a mediocre candidate rather than taking the risk of not being backed up by the Senate?
No, I'm saying that he nominated a candidate who is absolutely positive will NOT "drift" once she gets on the Court -- one that will definitely take the Court rightward.
If that's the case, I think it's a bad choice by Bush - I'm not as convinced as you are that it wouldn't be doable.
I'm positive he couldn't have gotten anybody else confirmed with the way the Gang has screwed him; I believe he's going to get another shot at the Court and after Miers is on the Court, you're going to see the next nominee blow the Democrats' collective peabrains; but I don't think it will be anybody who has already been named/listed.
I'm with you on this (for what it matters).
After all the hand wringing started, the first thing that crossed my mind was 'no, she's probably NOT the BEST, per se, but she's probably the BEST, in all practicality.'
As to some other points that have been raised...
I've been listening to Rush, and what another poster said earlier is, I believe, correct. People heard him on the first couple days and heard what they wanted to hear. I heard him laying out the reasons the 'base' would feel betrayed, but I also heard him asking people, if they were headed into a fight, did they want their army to be the Republican Senators...
I've been listening to Laura Ingraham for several weeks now that I've found KSKY streaming audio (also get Bill Bennett, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager; conservatism at work! Woo hoo!). Normally love her. She dealt me a devastating blow, though, in the first day or so of this nomination. It was in regards to the 'democrat donations' of the late 80's. She pointed out that HM had given $$ to Dems in 88, and I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, since that info had been posted here, that HM had followed that up with Republican donations, esp. Phil Gramm (whom I like).
Never happened.
That bothered me a bit.
It also bothered me that most of the arguments from the right appear to be something along the lines of "but we wanted, no, we DESERVED, a fight!" Not victory, but the battle. That's been refined a bit to 'we deserved a known constructionist', but still...
I don't know.
I guess I have a bit of faith in GW on this particular issue. We'll see who's right as things unfold.