I agree with that.
I've supported the president on her nomination from the beginning, but I've placed my hopes on the hearings bringing out the information needed to make a better decision.
"Waiting to get more info" is hardly an "enthusiastic" endorsement. So far, I'm OK with her resume, her pro-gun, and her pro-life positions. I'm not OK with her support of "proportional" affirmative action.
I got to wondering this morning, not about your personal position BTW - your post just triggered the thought, that the "true believers" can't really change their mind about Ms. Miers based on the hearings either.
If Bush made a good pick, as the pro-Miers people assert, how could hearings change that trust? If her performance comes off as "weak," it can be attributed to having a bad week or something. But it can't be because Ms. Miers is the wrong person for the Court.
IOW, a defender who stands by Miers being a good pick is asserting that she's a good pick for the Court, period. Would the President make a pick that was not? If he would (pick a nominee who is not suitable for the Court), then he is not trustworthy.
Those who hold firm to the "trust GWB" defense cannot change their position with respect to the Miers pick on the basis of her performance at the hearings. To do so would mean their trust was misplaced.
GWB's pick had to account not only for her judicial philosophy, but also for her mental ability. Indeed, her outstanding career has been advanced as evidence of her mental ability and energetic drive. To a "trust GWB" adherent, the fact that GWB picked he means, per se, that she possesses the required intellect. And neither Ms. Miers written answers, or answers during the hearings can change that.