Conservatives Rebuked Bush, Not Miers

If there's anything we can take away from Harriet Miers' withdrawal this morning, it's that conservatives rebuked President Bush, not Miers - even if it didn't seem that way.

Bush has been alienating his base on several fronts for some time now, and the Miers nomination was simply that last straw. If Miers was confirmed, I think we would have ended up with someone to the left of O'Connor (as one speech transcript from the Nineties tends to indicate). On the other hand, by forcing the withdrawal, conservatives have risked setting a bad precedent because they've always argued that if a nominee is qualified, he or she should be confirmed. As the guys at Power Line have argued, Ms. Miers qualifies, at least by historical standards. And by getting her to withdraw we potentially face future confirmation standards where senators will reject qualified candidates simply because they're not the ones they wanted, or they're not the "best" of the bunch. That shouldn't be how it should work, either. But I think this outcome is the only one that gives Republicans a shot of avoiding irrelevance for the next three years, and at least saves Bush from immediate lame duck status.

At the end of the day, it was Bush's capitulation to Senate Democrats as well as his apparent decision to listen to his wife - practically discounting male candidates - instead of his base that turned conservatives sour, lending the impression that Ms. Miers lacked merit for such a prestigious position in American politics. In short, what else were people supposed to think?

Senate Republicans refused to fight for John Bolton's nomination to the U.N., which may have been a harbinger of their reluctance to fight for a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court. But, in my view, Bush has an obligation to his base to appoint one and at least expect them to. If nothing else, such a nomination will clarify whether our problems lie with our president or our Congress.