Hugh Hewitt writing in repsonse to criticism of his New York Times piece on the Miers Withdrawal wrote the following:

As for Matt Anderson's question: A defeat on the Senate floor would have been painful, but also a constitutional result with many upside as clarity about who believes what is almost always a plus in a republic.

Miers did not lose in blogs, op-eds or at NRO. Is there anyone who does not think for a moment that if despite all of the punditry the votes were there to approve the nomination Miers would have withdrawn? The simple fact is that the nomination's failure in the Senate was a foregone conclusion. Why go through the struggle and the pain of a losing Senate fight that would result in what would appear to be a victory over the president by Senate Democrats.

Technorati Tags: George Bush, hattiet miers, miers, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 07:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment