If those opposed to Miers continue to speak out loudly (which is their right) and to claim that Bush lied (which I believe is just inaccurate) then maybe they will create some unease with the base. If they do, though, it will have been from the top down, rather than from the grassroots up. Maybe those opposed to the nomination will be successful in getting enough of the base to vote against Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections, or to just stay home. Do they think that we will then get better nominees, with Democrats in charge? Even those who hate this nomination, and hate Bush for making it, can’t really believe that. Can they?And the ridiculous charge that Bush lied about what kind of person he would nominate:
I can understand those disappointed in this candidate, and those who believe Bush missed an opportunity. I can even understand, though I don’t agree with, those who believe Bush broke a promise. But to say Bush “lied” is to say that when he said he would nominate those in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, he secretly intended not to do so. This interpretation of the word “lie” is just wrong. It is wrong the same way it was wrong when used by those who say Bush lied about WMD. To say he lied then, would mean that when he said Saddam possessed WMD, that he really knew no WMD existed. Do we really have to revisit the definition of what a lie is with those on the conservative side of the aisle?It is in our interest that President Bush succeed in getting Miers approved by the Senate and sitting on the Supreme Court. BTW, my best source for Supreme Court issues is Hugh Hewitt. I check Hugh every day.