Miers is a constructionist, according to the President. Other factors enter into a nomination besides that, however. One interesting fact about Miers is that she is not a party goer. She is very much out of the limelight. I imagine, when looking at nominees, that was a consideration in her favor, because she won't be susceptible to dinner invitations, cocktail chatter, or fancy parties. She won't change her view, as the President said.
My point is also pertinent, regardless of your opinion. A major consideration of this decision is whether or not Bush can persuade the squishes in the Senate GOP to vote for the nominee. If Crying George Voinovich wouldn't stand up for Bolton, why in the world would you think he would back Priscilla Owens? He would tell us all that he just couldn't bring himself to vote for her because of his granddaughter or something, while wiping his eyes.
I find it disturbing that NO analyses of the Senate has risen in any of the columns by these beltway pundits. To view a nomination as if it is made in a vacuum is simply disengenuous.
I note that Krauthammer tries to deflect the charge of elitism, but I am afraid that I don't believe him. The level of immediate outrage over this pick is mind-boggling. One would have thought some consideration of the pick would have been noted; I have seen nothing but vitriol.
I note also that Krauthammer innoculates himself from being proved wrong if Miers' testimony is brilliant. Apparently even if it is brilliant, we are still to think she is incompetent.
I hope that is detailed enough criticism for your requirements. I indeed read the article, and in fact went back twice to make sure I hadn't missed anything.