I don't disagree with your reservations about W. We don't have much excuse for being too surprised, really, because he never ran as a total, pedal to the metal doctrinnaire conservative (like me!). Truth is, I've been pleasantly surprised far more often than disappointed, because my expectations were low.
But we always argue that a president should have his choice for SC justices. That's why we work so hard to get "our" guys in office. I think conservatives have been two-faced and hypocritical in fighting SO hard and implacably against Miers. Stating reservations is fine; then we should have shut up and waited for the hearings. His judicial record warrants that. Shut up, or at least toned it down.
Plus -- is W on record as opposing preferences? If not, then would we expect him to demand such of an appointee?
Dan
Some ideas you present, I'll agree with you. Other parts, I will take issue. I will take issue, because we would be screaming bloody murder if the liberal press would not presnt a liberal president and their SCOTUS nomination wiht continuing exposure and scrutiny. Yet we are asking for silence from our folks? Sure, some of it is the constant drumbeat of the same old same old, but often there is an amplification or a new audience to expose the material to. Also, the people who have been doing this are passionate about their positions. So why not? Should we stiffle their passion and thoughts simply because we don't agree with it? For the sake of (disfunctional) family unity?