Harriet Miers withdraws

And I'm pleased. I hope the President nominates someone worthy of a fight.

In some ways, I wish she would have been given the opportunity for hearings and a vote, because I think that have been the fairest thing to do. But, I also fear that allowing that extra time would only further expose Miers' weaknesseses, which would more greatly damage the president's credibility and opportunity for a solid replacement pick.

I'm not so happy with the accusations, which have been flying for weeks and are intensifying this morning, that this was an insurrection against the administration. That opposition to Miers was sexist. That it was arrogant. That this has set a precedent for paper trail that Democrats will use against any future nominees.

No, no, no and no! There were certainly some on the right (and the left) who lobbed unfair or inaccurate charges against Miers, but those people exist regardless of the nominee. If you're going to accuse loyal Republicans of conducting a smear campaign against Miers and the White House, you need to come up with specific examples. (And Chuck Schumer doesn't qualify as an example.) I have seen no specifics, only generic vitriol.

I see it as conservatives with high hopes for the most important judicial body in the country, people who went from worried about a blank slate to panicked about a woman with historical evidence of her lack of qualifications and quality. As her political views were resurrected, they ranged from conservative to liberal in the span of hours, causing increasingly legitimate questions — President Bush's "Trust me, I know her" notwithstanding — about the potential for another David Souter. That is but one reason why so many people — Hugh Hewitt aside — could not support her.

Let the games begin. Again.