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.