Because the only legitimate argument they have so far to disqualify her is that she is an unqualified idiot who shouldn't be allowed IN a courtroom, much less on the bench.
They can't make that argument about Gonzales, who served honorably on the texas supreme court.
They will still rant about him being insufficiently "conservative" (even though if he's a strict constructionist what he "believes" personally shouldn't matter). But they might be able to stop his nomination, they won't be able to stop confirmation, unless they join forces with liberals who will attack him for supporting the war on terror.
There's the headline we all want, conservatives joining forces with the hate-america crowd to stop a qualified judicial nominee because of his personal beliefs.
Rather big "if", there. His judicial record doesn't look all that promising in that department.
There's the headline we all want, conservatives joining forces with the hate-america crowd to stop a qualified judicial nominee because of his personal beliefs.
Something that Bush might want to consider before nominating him, especially after Gonzales has already said that he's not a candidate for the position.
In my more paranoid, Carl Rove is an evil genius, moment, I was musing that this was all a grand strategy to get Gonzales on the bench. Nominate Miers, let conservatives come up with some really stupid objections, have her withdraw and then nominate Gonzales who satisfies all those objections. The only problem with this theory is how did the WH know that conservatives would act like hysterical 2 year olds.