Quag-Miers

Professor Bainbridge has a very strong critique of Bush's choice of Miers (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Sully).

Essentially, she appears to be a moderate at best, a suck-up, undistinguished, and without conservative credentials. Moreover, her nomination seems to indicate to conservative judges that they'd better try to keep their mouths shut and not "come out of the closet" (i.e. as being conservative) if they want a chance atthe Supreme Court.

George Will is infuriated (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster).

Hugh Hewitt, of course, (who thought that Bush won the first debate, "big time," but his blog archives don't go back that far, so I don't have a link) is busy kissing George W.'s Hugh Hewitt.

Interestingly enough, George Will is, in the same article, also slamming Bush for not vetoing McCain-Feingold, stating that "has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution." In other words, Will is saying that Bush is not qualified to be President, and could be interpreted as saying he wishes Bush could be impeached.

And look at Michelle Malkin's posts here, here, here, and here.

I'll try to get more for the round-up later, but I think that some conservatives are beginning to get it.

The biggest thing that conservatives have to realize, though, if they want ot have some hope of rescuing "conservatism" from what it has become, is that the problem with Bush is not that he is pandering to Democrats. Put another way, the problem is not that he is an arch-conservative at heart but is too timid to stand up for what he believes in.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS A LIBERAL WHO IS PLAYING CONSERVATIVES FOR SUCKERS.

Howard Sutherland made this same point, as quoted on Lawrence Auster's View from the Right.

That is not all. Not by a long shot.