Patterico has excellent post on Miers, this time examining some of the nominee's views on the rights to choice and the nature of judicial activism. Damning stuff.
For the record, what do you think the conservative reaction would have been had President Bush nominated Alberto Gonzales, instead of Miers? Conservatives would have been upset, they would have felt betrayed, they probably would have even carped bitterly about Bush's unhealthy obsession with "loyalty" and perhaps would have gone all the way to "cronyism." But do you think they would have actually mounted a wide-spread campaign of opposition to the nomination? I don't.
Because while Gonzales would have been an ideological disappointment, he wouldn't have been fundamentally unqualified for the SCOTUS the way Miers obviously is. I believe that for conservatives their ultimate objection to the Miers nomination is really is about quality. Even if you could provide incontrovertible proof that Miers would spend the next 20 years voting with Scalia and Thomas on every case, they would still object.
This is a good thing. It means that conservatives have been serious as they argued against the naked politicization of the judiciary.
Anyway, it seems this morning that the administration line has moved from Don't oppose Miers, because her confirmation is inevitable to the slightly more skittish, If any Senators oppose Miers, We the Republican People, will make that Senator pay at the ballot box.
To which the obvious reply is: What you mean "we," kemosabe?
2 hours ago