Souterphobia seems to have the right firmly in its grip.
One major difference is that 41 knew little to nothing himself about Souter, but counted instead on Rudman and John Sunnunu, as New Hampshirites familiar with him. 43, on the other hand, has known Ms. Miers personally in a variety of roles for 15 years. He has had the opportunity to hear what she has to say when not under the glare of consideration for the "short list.'
If conservatives believe honesty is doing what's right when no one is looking, perhaps W got a better read on Ms. Miers when she had no idea of the impact of what she was saying. I trust the man's instincts. And, I'm getting mighty tired of movement conservatives jumping on the president and his appointee before she's had a chance to define herself.
Well put. It seems to be the primary argument being advanced agaisnt Miers. But the anti-Miers hysterics fails to take into consideration one vital point: GHWB never presided as a Conservative, never promised anything as to judicial picks. He may have given a little lip service to strict constructionism, but his main mantra, distancing himself from the Reagan years, was "a kinder gentler nation."
When Souter was nominated, he was a mystery and still is, largely because of his untreated mental illness. But no one ever touted Souter as a conservative.
The analogy from Souter to Miers is a false analogy and those who press it need to explain why they are twisting the truth to advance their opposition to the President.