Inappropriate Content: Miers Who?

So: I've mentioned the Miers nomination—as has everyone else on the face of the planet. I was sanguine about the thing, pointing out that a lack of judicial experience is hardly a disqualifier. Harry Reid seemed to be thinking similar thoughts, saying her lack of judicial experience is a "plus, not a minus."

Well, she may not have any minuses, but she no one seems to be coming up with many pluses, either. Democracy Guy titles his post "Supreme Court? Crony Time!!!" calls Miers an "insulting choice" and demands her work on the Texas Lottery Commission be gone over "with a fine toothed comb."

He's absolutely right. Democracy Guy hails from Ohio, and the recent shenanigans in Columbus ought to be proof enough of that for anyone. (No, really, go ahead and ask Bob Taft about his coins.)

Well, it just might get such a reception. Here's The Carpetbagger predicting media skepticism:

The conventional wisdom is that a nominee's narrative is largely set within the first 48 hours or so. With this in mind, by sometime Wednesday, the mainstream media will probably be reporting a) "Harriet Miers, who's nomination has been well received on the Hill," or b) "Harriet Miers, who's limited record has made her nomination more controversial than John Roberts'."

At this point, after about six hours, the latter is slowly taking root — and Dems haven't had to lift a finger...

Well, it's impossible for me not to roll my eyes at "here's the situation six hours in," but he may well be right.

In any case, if the Democratic party hasn't settled on any sort of response, the conservative media has very quickly emitted a collective, unequivocal, uncompromising "eh."

That's a quote, by the way. Jonah Goldberg is saying that "the chatter around here and the new editorial all echo my basic feelings: Eh." David Frum calls Miers "an unforced error" and would much rather see Harriet's dad or that one senator with the same last name. (No, not Harriet Miers the nominee. A different Harriet. That is what's called an in-joke.) Bill Kristol is "disappointed, depressed, and demoralized," and John Hinderaker, Kathryn Lopez and Johnathan Adler all use one of those three words. Anklebitingpundits observe "Ugh. This is what we fought for?" Ramesh Ponnuru says Miers is "not as bad as Caligula putting his horse in the Senate," (a position with which I am inclined to agree) and suggests the following question for her nomination hearing:

Prior to this year, in the course of your legal career have you ever been involved in any Supreme Court litigation? Have you ever been consulted about such litigation? Has it ever occurred to anyone to consult you about it?

So, wow, way to fire up the base. Goldberg elaborates:

at first blush, what bothers me more is the political calculation here. Bush could very much use a brisk confirmation battle right now. His base is forgetting why he should be supported. Confirmation battles over big ideas are clarifying in ways that are good for the public and good for a president whose principles are getting blurry. The Miers pick comes along at precisely the wrong moment. Bush is saying "trust me" at exactly the time when conservatives want to be reassured they can trust him. The last thing he needs right now is to dip into his house credit one more time.

Bush has a history of running against the wind of his strongest critics, which is one of the things I love about the guy. For example, people said Bush was too unilateral and hostile to the international community, so he appointed John Bolton. But, either by accident or design, this time around he seems bent on countering a different kind of criticism. He's been getting beaten -- somewhat unfairly -- for his alleged cronyism of late. This appointment seems like the Bolton approach; "Oh yeah, you think I'm into cronyism? Well here's my former personal lawyer from Texas!"

All of which seems fairly spot-on to me, so here's to Washington's conservative pundits for getting things together pretty quickly. It's quite likely the Democrats will be more angry (and and they'll have every right to be, especially if they're from Ohio) but let's give the righties proper respect for getting their first.

Side note: Jonah Goldberg's analysis is the reason I read the conservative blogging at The Corner. Well, that and the Caligula thing.

Side note 2: The San Jose Mercury News gets the "Most Bizarre, Pointless, Cry-For-Help-Style Commentary on Harriet Miers" award. Congrats to them.