It's the reason we gave the man the job and majorities in both houses of Congress. It is time he actually stood up for the conservatives who went door to door making sure people got out to vote for him. (And who overlooked each new liberal entitlement or spending program he's come up with the last 5 years, for just this day).
Each new attempt to sell this boneheaded nomination sounds weaker and more pathetic than the last. This lack of loyalty to his base won't be forgotten and can't be washed away by some public relations campaign. It's indicative that they just don't get why so many people are upset. The President made very specific promises to the conservatives in his party about appointing originalist judges to the Supreme Court. He has now failed to do so with these 2 nominees. John Roberts, although qualified, is at best a minimalist while we can't even begin to guess what Harriet Miers is. The President asks us to trust him. We did trust him....to appoint qualified originalist judges as he promised. So far, he's two for two against.
It isn't a good sign for the White House that even the original weak support for this nominee is evaporating after less than a week. Their best defense consists of second and third hand testimony and it now turns out their number one booster is her lover.
It is also revealing to look at the tactics of the many people criticizing Harriet Miers versus those few voicing support. Those voicing criticism are bringing forth many valid, logical substantive arguments regarding this nominee's total lack of a defined judicial philosophy. This is not a trivial criticism. If you don't have a defined judicial philosophy, then your decisions tend to change and drift over time. This is what has happened to 5 of 7 of the last Republican nominated SCOTUS appointees. When you have a defined judicial philosophy, as Scalia and Thomas do, you are much less likely to drift since your interpretation of the Constitution isn't visceral but logical. The similarities between Miers and O'Connor in temperament are rather striking.
The strategies being employed by the few Miers defenders are, first try to malign those actually pointing out her lack of credentials. This is a tactic typically employed by liberals and avoids addressing the criticisms. This is often a very good sign that they can't provide substantive answers to the criticisms. The second strategy is the "Trust Us, we know things you don't." Well, that's not how the process works. And if the White House could actually demonstrate her judicial philosophy, they would have done so by this point and stopped the hemorrhaging of support. The third strategy they are using is a bit hypocritical. They wink and nod and say "well, she's an evangelical Christian, don't you know?" Why was it off limits to assume that because John Roberts is Catholic he might have certain opinions while with Harriet Miers we are told that because she's an evangelical Christian we can be sure she's got a certain political and judicial philosophy? (And this very assertion is shown to be worthless by her own resume.....how many evangelical Christians do you know who would want to run their state lottery?)
This crisis is very easy to defuse. Actually cite some evidence (and somebody's third cousin's veterinarian who once overheard her say something at a diner isn't evidence) that she has a specific philosophy regarding Constitutional interpretation. Don't try to demean the critics by making ridiculous charges of elitism or sexism. Go back and count the number of qualified women on my previous list if you don't believe it. Most of the critics would have been enthusiastically supporting any one of the women on that list.....and calling the wobbly Senators to make sure they voted to confirm her.
Reagan got Scalia confirmed 98-0.