Your train of thought leaves out two important pieces of information. First that President Bush's judicial nominations have been sterling across the board, and second that he is entitled to his own opinion. No president is an automaton. Obviously, President Bush felt that Harriet Miers would be a good candidate, or else, based on his otherwise fine record of judicial nominations, he would not have nominated her.
We have a representative form of government and it’s not whining to expect representation.
It is whining to continually bitch about a battle you already won over three years ago. It is whining to think that "representation" means you expect the person who represents you to not use his or her own judgement. It's why we elect representatives in the first place -- because we can't be there in person to exercise our own individual judgements. It is whining to continue to excoriate a representative who makes an initial decision, then changes course in response to the will of the people.
Well, I have not been continuously bitching about a battle won three years ago. I am desputing the notion that W deserves a big Atta Boy for his second choice. Which, BTW, was a good choice, but made under duress nonetheless - my point after all.
Also, I am not continuing to excoriate him for his decision. The subject was introduced into the conversation, making it entirely appropriate to respond. My opinion of his action shouldn’t have to change simply because three years have passed.
As far as his judicial nominations are concerned, my opinion regarding Harriet Miers is a separate issue. I did not say he deserves no credit for any other nominations. I simply said, and I stand by it, that he was forced to change and thus should not get the kind of credit that one gets for doing it on his own initiative. That’s all. No more, no less.