Seeing Only What We Want To See or, Whistling Past the Graveyard

On Monday, Hugh Hewitt posted this exercise in wish fulfillment: The debate is fierce at every level of the conservative movement and the GOP. But it ialso (sic) being won by the anti-anti-Miers people.

Of course that was prior to her, um (to be charitable) less than impressive performance on the Hill yesterday. Captain Ed lays it out in a brutal post entitled Miers 2.0: Same Bugs, Less Features. Even when the White House arranges promotional events, it still cannot get a clear message that goes beyond those qualifications. Conservatives will continue to wonder what makes her better qualified as an originalist, or even a demonstrable conservative, than many others with either judicial or philosophical public works of conservatism, many of whom are at least equally adept attorneys -- and all of whom could probably have handled interviews better than Miers did yesterday, with a sympathetic Senator.

Anyone who thinks the pro-Miers faction is winning this debate is simply not dealing with reality. After more than two weeks, the White House still has not come up with a single shred of supportable evidence that Harriet Miers is the person the President should have picked to be on the Supreme Court. As Peggy Noonan said the other day, if they had an argument for her, they would have made it by now. (And for the record "Shut up" is not an argument.) Some conservatives think (and say loudly) that we should push for her confirmation to keep the Democrats from winning. Frankly, I think this is a battle the President deserves to and should lose.