Blogosphere Replacing The Media

Previously, I wrote about how bloggers were asked to review the movie Serenity. It was yet another examples of the blogosphere being accepted as a legitimate concept and continuing to become a parallel to more traditional media sources.

The trend is continuing. Recently, Republican members of the U.S. House invited a number of bloggers to come to Washington and ask questions. The press release for the event can be seen here.

During the first ever Blog Row, Members were able to take questions and provide in depth answers while bloggers posted comments and summaries throughout the entire two and a half hour forum. The House Republican Conference reached out to bloggers nationwide, with eleven able to attend the event and post live from the Capitol. Today twenty-three Members spoke at "Blog Row' on everything from belt tightening in the budget to the recent elections in Iraq.

I'm not even really that interested in the questions that were asked, nor in the answers that were given. But I do find it fascinating that bloggers were asked to come to Washington and representatives took time out of their schedules to meet with them. This is a trend that you are going to see more and more as time passes.

The Cheeseburger Bill vs. Warning Labels For French Fries

A while back, Keith posted about a silly lawsuit in California that would require warning labels for french fries. Thankfully, the rest of the country doesn't seem to agree with this silliness. I hadn't heard of this before, but there is a bill in Congress (being called the Cheeseburger Bill) that would block lawsuits by people claiming that fast-food chains caused obesity.

"As one judge put it, if a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of super-sized McDonald's products is unhealthy and could result in weight gain, it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

I had little respect for the documentary Super Size Me. The diet followed there was specifically designed to be make McDonalds look bad. While some may argue that's the point of a documentary, it doesn't mean I have to respect it. I'm glad to see others feel as I do.

Bill O'Reilly On Modern Newspaper Decay

Bill O'Reilly has an interesting talking points article up entitled, "Your Freedom and the Press." I didn't see the episode of his show that he refers to in the article (apologies to Mr. O'Reilly, but I rarely watch his show), but apparently the Dallas Morning News tried to tie his program to the death by murder of six Mexicans in Georgia. Ignoring that one case, I found his comments about modern newspapers more interesting.

Recently, The L.A. Times changed the editor and editorial director because of falling circulation. The result is a better, more fair newspaper out there.

Profits at The New York Times company are down more than 50 percent. There's a civil war in the paper's newsroom over the Judith Miller situation. And the paper's perceived arrogance has alienated many readers. Other newspapers having similar problems.

Typically for O'Reilly, he's calling for a boycott--this time of newspapers and mainstream media.

The only thing more powerful in the media than ideology is money. Hurt these charlatans in the wallet, and changes will be made. Turn off the smear merchants on TV, they'll disappear. Only you, the American public, can bring fairness and accuracy back to the media.

I think there is some (though not enough) evidence that this is happening already.

(As a bonus, under the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" section in to the same column, check out the silliness in Berkeley over Veterans Day. Ridiculous indeed.)

Anbar Campaign In Iraq

I know that pointing out an Instapundit link is somewhat like telling people that the sky is blue, but I can't pass this one up. Glenn links to The Fourth Rail, where Bill Roggio details the military strategy used in Iraq over the past year. The text is interesting and they have a flash video showing the campaign visually.

What struck me the most when reading the post was (embarrassingly) how I've been influenced by the media's coverage of Iraq. (And from reading many of my posts here I think you'll agree that I'm usually on my guard against such things.) What is clear from watching the video, linked above, is that there is a definite strategy being employed by U.S. and Iraqi forces. While I was aware that the media has focused on the negative, with the daily count of casualties, and ignored the successes for the most part, I was unaware that they have neglected to cover the details of the anti-terrorist plan--or even that there was a plan at all.

You get the feeling from watching the news that U.S. troops are just driving around like policemen, occasionally falling victim to car bombs and other attacks. The coverage seems to indicate that the U.S. was ill-prepared for the occupation and has followed no coherent strategy. Clearly that is not the case.

The New York Times' Global Warming Agenda

Steven Milloy has an interesting article in his junk science series over at FoxNews. The article concerns two of my favorite subjects--New York Times bias and a debunking of global warming.

On Oct. 10, the NYT published an article entitled, "As Polar Ice Turns to Water, Dreams of Treasure Abound." The article discusses investments being made to control rights to land that this being revealed by the melting of the northern polar ice cap. The arctic region holds a huge amount of natural gas and oil resources, so obviously there is a lot of money to be made. That in itself is an interesting story. However, the Times felt compelled to add this:

The Times spotlighted, for example, a Denver entrepreneur who purchased a “derelict Hudson Bay port from the Canadian government in 1997” for $7. The entrepreneur, who estimates the port could bring in as much as $100 million per year, “is no more to blame than anyone else for a meltdown at the top of the world that threatens Arctic mammals and ancient traditions and lends credibility to dark visions about global warming,” reported the Times.

“It’s the positive side of global warming, if there is a positive side,” the transportation minister of Manitoba told the Times.

What I love here is that global warming is stated as a fact, as if the article were discussing the law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics. Milloy provides some interesting data that refutes the theory of human activity causing global warming. I suggest you read the whole article, linked above, if you are interested but the most compelling data were presented in a graph here, along with this analysis:

Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic region to talk about. From 1918 to 1938, alone, the Arctic warmed by 2.5 degrees Centigrade. But the actual temperature trend is much different, showing that there’s been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938.

[...]

During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it’s estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide – the bugbear of greenhouse gases to global warming worriers – increased by an estimated 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 – a period of essentially no increase in Arctic warming – the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million. It doesn’t seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.

It is unfortunate that no matter what the real truth, if you repeat something often enough it starts to be perceived to be true. I'm sure if a poll were conducted of young Americans, a vast majority would indicate that irresponsible human activity has resulted in catastrophic global warming. But as a scientist I find it disheartening that propaganda and not data becomes the basis for "the truth".

The Impossible Iraqi Vote

I was trying to gather a number of reactions to the Iraqi vote, but stumbled upon one that pretty much says exactly what I was hoping to say. The blog is Murdoc Online (hat top Instapundit) and you can read the full post here. The post is so succinct that my excerpts here will almost quote it in entirety. The post begins with the following observations.

Recall that it would take many months and many thousands of American lives simply to conquer Iraq.

Recall that, even if we managed to get control, the Iraqi people would never regain their sovereignty.

Recall that, even if we did give Iraq back to the Iraqis, it would simply be a puppet government that ruled.

Recall that, even if the government ever allowed elections, the Iraqi people wouldn't be interested in participating.

Recall that, even if the Iraqis did want to vote, the violence in Iraq would prevent them from doing so.

Recall that, even if elections were held, they would be so corrupt as to be worthless.

Recall that, even if a freely-elected government was formed, they would never be able to keep control.

Recall that, even if a new Iraqi government did manage to run things, they would never agree on a permanent charter.

Recall that, even a charter acceptable to all government leaders was written, the Iraqi voters would never approve it.

Recall that, even if voters did approve a new constitution, it would be without much participation of the Sunnis and would therefore be meaningless.

So how did the AP spin the Iraqi vote?

Oct. 16, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's constitution seemed assured of passage Sunday despite strong opposition from Sunni Arabs who turned out in surprisingly high numbers in an effort to stop it.

The constitution's apparent victory was muted, though, by the prospect that the vote result might divide the country further.

This is not from an editorial mind you. If you truly believe that the American media is not heavily biased against the Bush administration then I'm afraid nothing will convince you otherwise. I can only hope the extent to which the mainstream media pushes its own agenda at the cost of the truth will become obvious to more and more people. Let us all hope.

Flood Waters In New Orleans Not As Toxic As Feared

I noticed this article in USA Today: Katrina's floodwaters not as toxic as expected. The article starts with the following.

The New Orleans floodwaters described as toxic in news accounts of Hurricane Katrina's impact were actually about as dangerous as the city's normal storm water runoff, according to surprised researchers at Louisiana State University.

Well, at least they are surprised. Let's see what we have. The number of deaths from hurricane Katrina (thankfully) was far less than reported than initial reported by the media. The wide-spread lawlessness reported turned out to be not as wide-spread and not as lawless. And now the deadly, toxic flood waters are found not to be that deadly or toxic. Was there anything else that was reported as horrific that may be found, upon review, to have been less severe than first thought? Perhaps: It is all Bush's fault?

I don't really think this was a case of bias by the media. I think it was simple sensationalism in an attempt to attract viewers. Ever since helicopters chased down O.J. Simpson in the infamous white bronoco, it seems that every major news story must be met with round-the-clock news coverage. Inevitably with such coverage, the camera time starts to outstrip the flow of information and fact-checking is seemingly the first victim.

Breakthrough Deal Reached On Iraqi Constitution

In case you missed it, it is being reported (MSNBC via the AP) that Iraqis have reached a deal on the constitution.

Under the deal, the two sides agreed on a mechanism to consider amending the constitution after it is approved in Saturday’s referendum. The next parliament, to be formed in December, will set up a commission to consider amendments, which would later have to be approved by parliament and submitted to a referendum.

This seems to be enough to get at least some of the Sunnis to change their mind about the constitution.

A top Sunni negotiator, Ayad al-Samarraie of the Iraqi Islamic Party, said the measure would allow it to “stop the campaign rejecting the constitution and we will call on Sunni Arabs to vote yes.”

It already appeared that the Iraqi constitution was going to be approved. But if it is approved by Shiite, Kurdish, and Sunni people, it will obviously grant a lot of legitimacy to the document. As always the situation in Iraq remains unstable, but this is good news.

Personal Experience In Iraq

Powerline posted a letter from Major E., who is temporarily back from Iraq. Not surprisingly the major is a conservative and unhappy with the news coverage of Iraq. One could dismiss his opinions as military propaganda, but I found the letter to be an interesting alternative to the death-count articles written by the media.

He ends with:

As far as the situation in Iraq is concerned, suffice to say that things are going much better over there than is being reported, and I am confident that the voter participation in the upcoming constitutional referendum and in December's elections will confirm that.

The anti-Iraqi forces seem to win the battle for daily headlines, but we win on the big events--because, as on January 30th, the victory was so big as to be undeniable. More important that scoring PR points, though, is the fact that life of the average Iraqi is improving and the legitimacy of the new government is growing.

I hope that is all true.

Al Qaeda In Gaza

Powerline has a disturbing post about a reported Al Qaeda presence in Gaza since Israel withdrew settlers and troops. If these reports turn out to be true, it will be interesting to see the reaction from the Bush administration and from other world leaders.

For many that opposed the war in Iraq, the actions were decried as creating a breeding ground for new terrorists. If peaceful withdrawal and retreat is also found to create a breeding ground for new terrorism, what will the conclusion be then?

Schroeder Out, Merkel In

According to the BBC (hat tip: redstate), it appears the Angela Merkel will become the first woman chancellor of Germany. She comes to power through a coalition of Christian Democrats (Merkel) and the Social Democrats (Schroeder). The best part of the news is that Schroeder is said to have no part in the coaltion.

This could obviously be a fantastic opportunity to improve American-Germany relations. I need not detail the behavior and comments of Schroeder in the past--one can only assume things will be better from here.

The deal is very odd, however. In agreeing to step aside, Schroeder apparently argued for the Social Democrats to get eight seats on the cabinet, while Merkel's Christian Democrats get only six seats. This seems like a very unstable situation to me, though I am woefully ignorant of the details of German politics. More thoughts on that can be found here.

Wanting War Over Judicial Nominees

I continue to read reactions to the Miers nominations with a sense of disgust. The nomination certainly seems to have brought out the worst in people. I agree with Lorrie Byrd at Polipundit that sadly the debate has turned from real issues to a great deal of sniping and insulting.

The Miers nomination has shown just how complicated the political landscape is in the U.S. The media loves to paint a simple picture, using red and blue to make things clearly black and white. But the shades of gray have always been there. As an example, take the view of Polipundit, who has now switched his position and opposes Miers:

Some will argue that defeating Miers in the Senate would be politically damaging to the GOP. But it would be worse for Miers to be confirmed and become another O’Connor. Miers’ confirmation would be terribly demoralizing to conservatives like me, who donate thousands of hard-earned dollars to Republican candidates every year. We did not help elect a Republican president, and 55 Republican senators, so that we could get another O’Connor on the Court.

A coalition of, say 30 conservative Republican senators, and 21 liberal Democrat senators, could stop Miers from being confirmed. And so they should. Mushy moderates, like the Gang of 14, are the biggest supporters of this nomination; it’s about time that principled ideologues, on both sides of the aisle, asserted their supremacy.

Can you imagine how messy this would be if it actually came to pass? The 21 most liberal Democratic senators band together with the 30 most conservative Republican ones to stop the nomination. OK, then what? So that Bush would take that as a cue to nominate a "true conservative", the Democrats filibuster, and the Republicans scramble to go nuclear? Clearly the White House feels that in the end, the filibuster would hold and the more conservative nomination would ultimately fail.

The more conservative side of the Republican party seems itching for a fight. So much so that they suggest working with the very people they want to fight, just so the fight can occur. I can't believe that this is approach is good for the country.

Bush's Best Speech That Nobody Heard

I'm a little perplexed by the timing of Bush's most recent speech, concerning Iraq and the war on terror.

From many accounts, it was an excellent speech for Bush. Here is Donald Sensing's take. Here's a view from a blog I'm not familiar with, but was linked by Instapundit. Glenn at Instapundit had this to say. If you scroll to the bottom of this reaction, by the California Yankee, you can see a set of links to many more positive reactions. Not surprisingly, GOPBloggers calls it one of the finest speeches on terrorism. A full transcript can be found here.

So why then, was the speech delivered at 10 AM EDT? If you noted in the reviews most people either missed the speech live, caught part of it, or only heard it on the radio while doing something else. Personally, I read the news articles the previous day that the speech was planned, did not note that it was in the morning, and was therefore confused when I realized I had missed it. Also note that none of the major news outlets carried it. While the major network and cable news have been biased against Bush (except FoxNews, of course), they typically will show a presidential speech presented in the evening hours.

While I think the clamor over the Miers nomination is overblown, I do agree that it appears that the White House didn't think they could win a fight over a conservative nominee. And now Bush gives a tell-it-like-it-is speech on terrorism, but it's scheduled so only astute political junkies will hear it?

Color me confused.

Miers Nomination And A Split Republican Party?

The Washington Post has an article concerning how discontent of some over the Miers nomination has caused a split in the Republican party. The do try to spin it into the worst news as possible with:

The tenor of the two meetings suggested that Bush has yet to rally his own party behind Miers and underscores that he risks the biggest rupture with the Republican base of his presidency. While conservatives at times have assailed some Bush policy decisions, rarely have they been so openly distrustful of the president himself.

Naturally the more conservative blogs (ala Polipundit) find such commentary laughable. While I agree that the spin by the WaPo is exaggerated, it sadly isn't that unrealistic. One has to look no further to the comments posted on Polipundit itself to see some of the most childish, vindictive posts among a group of people that sometimes approach being a pro-Bush echo chamber.

I think the Miers nomination has revealed a truth that has been avoided since the last election; while 62M+ people voted for Bush, they voted for him for a variety of reasons.

• for his stance on social issues; specifically pro-Life and a traditional view of marriage
• for his understanding that 9/11 was not an isolated event and that action must be taken
• for his promise to nominate judges would aren't activists and wouldn't legislate from the bench
• because he is a Republican and Republicans traditionally stand for smaller government
• because he wasn't John Kerry

Everyone who voted for him didn't do so for all of the reasons above. Those who are hoping for a smaller government are noticeably disappointed; see the porkbusters campaign. Those that wanted an aggressive stance against terrorism are much more pleased.

It is easy for people to get confused between these issues. Bush promised many times that his court nominees wouldn't legislate from the bench. He never promised that they would have a paper trail of being 100% pro-Life. In fact, he often said (and has said again recently) that he doesn't have an abortion litmus test for his nominees.

So in Harriet Miers we have a woman who is known to be pro-Life as a personal choice and reported to be an originalist by Bush and people who know her. Yet if you read through conservative commentary, that is not enough for people. They want the paper trail that says she is going to strike down Roe v. Wade and strike it down as soon as humanly possible. Such demands are as ridiculous as complaints from the left about Roberts from the opposite direction.

In the end, I do agree with Polipundit and others--many who voted for Bush in 2004 would do so again. The fracture that the WaPo hopes for is much less severe than they would suggest. But to those that are bickering about the Miers nomination the loudest, I can only suggest you read this post by the Anchoress, and grow up.

Disputing George Will's Column On Miers

The argument over the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court continues to rage across the blogosphere. There's really no way to capture all of the discussion in a single post, so I'll focus on an interesting slice of the discussion.

At townhall, George Will blasted the president's choice, in a column title Miers is the wrong pick. Not surprisingly coming from George Will, the crux of his argument centers around intellectual superiority and how Harriet Miers has not demonstrated that she has any. Specifically he notes:

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

Basically he's saying if you asked a bunch of smart people, none of them would pick Miers.

Reginald Brown has responded negatively to Will's column. His response has been posted at the Volokh Conspiracy. Brown takes Will to task on each an every point. It is an interesting read so I suggest you follow the link and read the whole thing. Specifically, in response to the point I singled out above, Brown writes:

Will’s second argument is that the President didn’t consult with serious people before making the choice of Miers. This is also a silly argument. We know that the President consulted with eighty members of the Senate, including all of the Republicans on Senate Judiciary. He also reached out to people like Leonard Leo and Jay Sekulow. And he has serious, principled conservatives, like Bill Kelley, on the White House Counsel’s Office staff. These aren’t cronies or toadies who will only tell the President what he wants to hear.

I think Brown sums it up the best at the end of his response:

I love George Will’s work, and he’s a great conservative, but he’s way off-base with today’s column.

Absolutely.

Why Not Use The Military In Disaster Relief?

There's an interesting debate that seems to be on the back burner at the moment, concerning whether using the military in a lead roll in disaster relief is a good idea.

The idea of course started when the National Guard appeared far more efficient at restoring order to New Orleans than other federal, state, and local governments did combined. We know now that the chaos in New Orleans was greatly exaggerated by the media, but the success of the guard's efforts still cannot be denied. Recently, President Bush has suggested using the military to handle an outbreak of the avian flu.

This suggestion has raised concerns and drawn criticism from Instapundit (here and again here), Austin Bay, and even a front-page-linked article on CNN. I don't agree with the severity of these concerns.

Austin Bay suggests that using the military in a lead roll would confuse local and state disaster preparations. I suppose depending on the quality of the local resources that could happen. But in New Orleans, things looked pretty confused until the military arrived.

Other have noted that using the military puts soldiers in the awkward position of having to use force against U.S. citizens, should that be necessary. While obviously a horrible situation, it is one the local police forces are put into each and every day.

In the CNN article, Gene Healy of the CATO institute said this about modifying the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which bans the military from participating in police-type activity on U.S. soil.

"What it does is set a high bar for the use of federal troops in a policing role," he wrote in a commentary on the group's Web site. "That reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified."

That is probably the most persuasive of the counter-arguments. The United States as a police state is an image that is both foreign and abhorrent to most Americans.

But if we aren't comfortable using the military, how is the federal government to be prepared to take the lead roll in disaster management, as the media and the country now seem to demand? Do we have a parallel agency in the government with thousands of trucks and a force trained to evacuate millions of people on short notice? Does this agency have its own security, if situations turn lawless? Does this security force have the budget to train thousands of responders, giving them the discpline to be organized in a chaotic situation? In a time where porkbusters is gaining momentum, I just don't see where the money comes to fund such an agency within the federal government.

Data On Ronnie Earle

I've avoided blogging about the DeLay indictments because, to be honest, the whole thing seems like a non-issue to me. Either the charges are bogus and DeLay will be exonerated or the charges are real and we will have learned that a politician did something dishonest--I'm sure you will be as shocked as I am. I suppose there is a 3rd possibility that DeLay is innocent but the trial will somehow be fixed, but I'm going to trust the legal system for now.

That being said, I noticed something interesting about the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, at the end of a grapevine piece by Brit Hume.

What's more, an assistant Austin DA tells filmmakers that Earle single-handedly pushed the DeLay investigation over his colleagues' objections, telling his staff "just keep hacking at it." One critic says Earle doesn't distinguish between what's illegal and what he thinks is wrong, saying, "you say...'Is that against the law?' He will say it's wrong. You say, 'Well, OK... Where is it that it is against the law?'"

This insight seems to me to feel right, without knowing any of the particulars of the case. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that DeLay did something questionable, but not illegal. And it also gives motive to Earle beyond the "he has it out for Republicans" mantra that you read about from conservatives.

Giuliani Will Consider Presidential Run

While in Denmark, Giuliani told reports he will decide "next year" if he is going to run for president. Maybe he wants more time to look at the results of the Patrick Ruffini straw poll, which has him ahead by a significant margin among realistic candidates.

And so it begins... Is there any doubt, really?

My Take on Miers

In my last post I made it clear that I don't think that Miers was the best candidate for the job. She doesn't have the A list credentials that scream qualified that Roberts does - Harvard law, SCOTUS clerkships, judicial experience (even if limited in Roberts' case). This will give Democrats an opening to oppose or at least batter her in confirmation hearings in the absence of much of a record on the issues. In addition, it looks like a reward for a political crony, a charge that has been leveled against the Bush administration numerous times and particularly so of late (Michael Brown at FEMA).

But does this mean that she will be either a poor justice or not conservative? I can't speak to the former, but as for the latter question we should remember that she was intimately involved in the selection process acting as White House counsel. She knows what the president wants in a justice, both on principle and in terms of Republican politics. Someone this involved is likely to be on the same page as Bush. Without needing to ask, the president probably knows her opinions on a variety of issues. While it's certainly possible that she follows the party line to some extent (representing her client's views, as Roberts often stated) it's more likely that she is a conservative.

Her close involvement with the president makes it very clear that she is no Souter, in the sense of a nominee whose views are an enigma to the president. The elder Bush did not know David Souter - he was suggested by Chief of Staff Sununu and Senator Rudman. GWB knows Miers well and as such is much less likely to be surprised by her later than GHWB was with Souter.

Do we know that Miers will be a reliable conservative? No. But that unfortunately is part of the point of choosing her. The Democrats don't know either. Some, including Hugh Hewitt, think we should trust the president implicitly while many others on the right apparently do not. I do feel like his past record on judicial nominees should at least entitle Bush to some trust from his supporters, but not unconditionally. I'm disappointed in the choice but hopeful.

If nothing else I hope that those conservatives who feel betrayed and are claiming that they will not support Republicans in 2006 will at least wait before making any final decisions. If she is confirmed she will have plenty of opportunities to establish her judicial philosophy before the 2006 elections (e.g. the partial birth abortion cases), thus possibly vindicating Bush's faith in her.

Ideological Tests = Harriet Miers

The US Constitution provides that the president nominates Article III judges subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. As I understand it traditionally, this advice and consent role was viewed as a way to guard against the appointment of obviously unqualified people. As this list on the Senate's web site shows, plenty of nominees for SCOTUS have been opposed vigorously through the years or even defeated. But at least for the last 100 years or more the great majority of Supreme Court nominees have been approved, many by voice vote (can anyone imagine such a thing today?). The logical conclusion is that most nominees were qualified and were approved based on that fact. In effect elections mattered and the man who won the presidency got to decide who sat on the court.

Shortly after George W. Bush took office, the senior senator from New York, Charles Schumer, decided that ideology should play an important part in the judicial selection process and his office put out a press release trumpeting this view. As Schumer reminded us during the Roberts hearings this started as a minority opinion among the Democratic caucus but he soon convinced the majority of his colleagues from the left. This led to filibustering of appellate court nominees, ended (for now) by the Gang of 14. The Democrats now feel justified in opposing any nominee with a paper trail supporting conservative opinions simply because they do not think he will produce the results that they want. There is little expectation that a highly qualified but outspoken nominee in the mold of Justice Ginsburg could get the 90+ votes that she received.

So where does this leave us? The president made a campaign promise to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. But even with Republicans holding a solid majority in the Senate he can't do nominate someone with that kind of record because either the Democrats would filibuster or the Republican caucus would be likely fracture over the abortion issue (Snowe, Collins, Chaffee and Specter would be likely to oppose an avowed anti-Roe nominee). In fact any nominee with a clear conservative record will be very difficult to confirm. This tends to eliminate many of the brightest lights of the judiciary or academia. Judges like McConnell, Luttig or Posner who are eminently qualified and have written extensively would ignite a firestorm. As much as the base on both sides would love to see a knock down, drag out fight, politicians by nature don't like to go this route. It provides too much risk, and risk isn't conducive to maintaining political power. (All politicians tend to be conservative in this respect.)

Instead we get a nominee with lesser credentials and no paper trail. In essence the president trades qualifications for confirmability. The imposition of an ideological test results in justices who are less qualified and country loses the possibility of service from some of the best and brightest.

This is not to say that Miers would not be a good Supreme Court justice. She might be. However, there is little reason to think that she is the best person for the job. I would rather have the best legal minds on the highest court in the land. But I suspect we will face the prospect of the best being out of contention unless and until one party achieves a stable, filibuster proof majority.