I love Ann and the way she riles the left, her book on the Venona Project was great, but she is sometimes out of control, as in this case. So many conservatives lose site of the fact that we have a weak majority in the Senate. If it were the House that confirmed justices, you would be talking a different ball game. The moderate republican senators have been the impediment to many of Bush's ideas and nominations.
In the Miers case, though I would have preferred a better pedigree and am not willing to endorse her at this time, I am willing to take a wait and see approach. Bush's track record for judicial nominations for the lower courts has been excellent and he has consistently outmaneuvered democrats in the past. I think Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt based on his judicial nomination track record.
One also has to remember, there is the possibility of a liberal judge(s), Stevens and/or Ginsberg, on the court retiring before this term is done, do you really want to waste your ammo here, to keep moderate republicans in line, when there could be a bigger, more important battle down the road to call in those chips ? If you use that card here, they may balk down the road.
Politics is a very complex game, and much like poker, you have to keep your cards close to the vest, and wisely bet your chips. This is a political poker game, the aim of the game, is to have all the chips at the end, but to get there, you win some larger and smaller pots here and there, you fold some hands, you don't throw in all your chips too soon, you lure your opponent into continuing to bet, waiting for that right moment to go 'all in' or forcing them to go 'all in' or fold after they have already wagered significant political capital.
Those on the fringe left or right are the suckers at the poker table, they play with emotion rather than with their heads.
Are you Phil Helmuth? ;) :)