Are conservatives not seeing the forest, here? Pat Ruffini lays it out the way he sees it:

Some would prefer a nominee in a more esoteric, elitist, or eccentric mold, with the penmanship of a Scalia. Harriet Miers will not be the flashiest Justice – but nor will she make leaps of logic that sometimes lead her in unconservative and unpredictable directions (see McConnell on polygamy, or Scalia on pornography). This is not the time to act like preening Ivory Tower elitists, but to call Harry Reid's bluff. Miers will cast the votes that O'Connor wouldn't. And that's all that matters.

2) The only way the President can be sure exactly how a particular nominee will vote is to really know them personally. Miers has been one of Bush's closest confidantes for almost twenty years.

3) The Roberts nomination was handled well by the White House, and Democrats played it badly. However, the Left has learned from this experience. And for them the stakes of this nomination are much bigger. A fight was in the works.

4) Conservatives - particularly social Conservatives - were emboldened by the success of the Roberts confirmation and were spoiling for a fight as well.

5) Any nominee who was a known quantity would have received the biggest Borking attempt by the Democrats since...well, since Bork. And while Conservatives may very well have won this fight, their cause would have been tainted. This is because many on the Right would have come across to the average American as just as extreme as the hard Left (and not just Ann Coulter). Not good PR, for Conservatives in general and for Bush in particular. Many will argue that the fight is not about PR, it's about principle. That's all well and good, but you can win on principle in the short term and still lose in the long term. Wouldn't it be great if the American voters still felt comfortable electing another Conservative Republican in 2008? More retirements are still on the horizon after Bush leaves office.

6) Miers' lack of a track record miffs the Democrats much more than they are letting on. Their whole strategy is to define a nominee as extreme, using every word they wrote or uttered no matter how obscure. They got a big goose-egg here. To say they've been thrown a perfect curve-ball is an understatement.

Look, I would have loved an Edith Jones or a Michael Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown for this spot. What Conservative wouldn't have? But what is ultimately the most important thing about this nomination? What is absolutely critical for this new Associate Justice? It's not the hearings, not the media coverage and not how good or bad Bush looks politically in relation to his adversaries.

It's the votes that this Justice will cast on the Court, plain and simple.

I believe that from Bush's perspective Harriet Miers represents the most solid and most reliable choice for the Supreme Court. Miers is an unknown quantity to everyone except the man responsible for putting her up on that bench. Bush is loyal, some say loyal to a fault. But on something this important, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

What is it that so many Conservatives are really disappointed about? Is it that they have to place their faith in a process that has let them down so many times before? Or is it more that there will now be no major showdown on issues that they care so much about, articulated by one of their super-stars on national television? I wonder.

It's chill time, people. I keep hearing that Bush betrayed Conservatives by not fulfilling his promise to nominate another Scalia or Thomas. Until they are absolutely convinced that he didn't, I would recommend that they give him the benefit of the doubt as well.

UPDATE: 11:45am
The American Thinker is thinking along the same lines:

In part, I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combate, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.

UPDATE II: 1:40pm
Rush made a good point this afternoon. He highlights the important not just of the votes but of also changing the "culture" of the Court. With this I cannot disagree with this, I would argue that the other way - and maybe a better way - to change the culture of the court is to keep replacing retiring justices with Conservative justices. Bush may not get another retirement. But it's highly likely that there will be at least two more retirements no later than 2012. Whomever is President the next time around needs to be on the same page as Bush regarding judicial philosophy. And the Senate must remain in GOP hands.

Posted by: Gary at 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 907 words, total size 6 kb.