The Miers nomination is turning into a Rorschach test dividing conservatives into the camp that understands governing for the long term and those that are so emotionally fragile or contingent in their allegiance that anything they (1) don't understand or (2) disappoints in any way becomes an occasion for panic and declarations of irreparable injury.What about emotionally-fragile conservatives who understand governing for the long term? Where would they stand on Miers?
The issue is not the character of the critics but the beliefs of the nominee. About which we know little.
Addendum (10/4): ProfessorBainbridge's post on Hugh Hewitt's take on movement conservatives and the Harriet Miers nomination is extremely through and highly recommended. I wish I had written it.
Addendum #2 (10/6): The Paragraph Farmer is worth reading on this.
Addendum #3 (10/6): John Rabe says:
Hugh Hewitt keeps claiming that true conservatives don't understand that President Bush is governing for the "long-haul." No. It's Hewitt who doesn't understand conservatism. Fighting these battles and setting a vision, even against difficult odds, is governing for the long-haul. Expedience always reaps only a short-term benefit.Also, his post here really sums up the feelings of many conservatives.
Addendum #4 (10/6): I just got around to reading the transcript of the Hugh Hewitt-Stephen Bainbridge debate on Harriet Miers on Radioblogger, and its got the best line I've seen yet encompassing the conservative criticism of Bush's decision to nominate a stealth candidate. Quoting Abraham Lincoln speaking of General George McClellan, Professor Bainbridge says of Bush:
I gave him this great army, and he won't use it.As history records, it was only after Lincoln replaced McClellan with a fighter (U.S. Grant) that the North won the war.