There’s little good news you can read about the Harriet Miers’ nomination, if you’re among the (small) group of people aggresively and enthusiastically pushing the nomination of George Bush’s lawyer to the Supreme Court.
For instance, note this major defection by National Review’s Jonah Goldberg:
It’s not just that Miers was in favor of racial quotas — we’d pretty much known that for a while. It’s the fundamental confirmation that she’s a go-along-with-the-crowd establishmentarian. The White House says that her enthusiastic support for goals, timetables and quotas at the Bar Association says nothing about her views on government race policies. Yeah, right. She simultaneously thought what she was doing was great and important while also believing it would be unconstitutional if the government did the same thing.
The White House says she’s an unchanging rock of principle. Uh huh. So have her opinions held constant since the early 1990s? Or have they shifted with the wind? If she’s a rock, I don’t want her. If she’s a weather vane, I don’t want her.
I just don’t want her.
Start over.
Expect a spate of stories about speculation on her withdrawal. Some could be trial balloons by the White House. Many will be send-them-a-message stories linked to Miers’ opponents. Question: if she withdraws or is withdrawn what kind of attitude will George Bush have towards the conservatives who opposed him on this one for the remainder of his term? Will he be deferential, due to their power (if she is withdrawn)? Or resentful?