Who would have thought?

The Bush would say "Trust Me" and conservatives would shout back "No".

Hannity and Limbaugh (and I) are really on the fence -- certainly wishing
the this would not have happened -- but willing to listen to all sides.

I think the critical question (and I've not read this elsewhere) is which way is the obligation facing?

• Is Bush obligated to the conservative movement which elected him to keep his promise and appoint an originalist like Scalia or Thomas?
  
• Or is the conservative movement which elected him obligated to trust his judgment that his judgment of Miers is sufficient?
  

I answer, Bush has the obligation. Republican presidents who have said "trust me" have given us Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy.

Only 2 justices are Democratic appointees: Breyer and Ginsberg.

Where are the 7-2 decisions -- which would reflect the values of the conservative movement? Elections out to mean something.

The Fight

An full-of-himself caller to Hannity thought himself clever to say "Isn't the best general the one who wins a war without firing a shot?".

The question was not answered directly on the show but I can answer it here.
Sometimes, to win the war, the enemy has to be educated -- there can be no ambiguity as to who won the war and who lost.

Leaving behind Saddam after the first Gulf War was a tragedy. The coalition of 1991 ended a limited war without winning a peace.

Lincoln knew that a negotiated end to the Civil War would be the end of the United States, which is why he continued to pursue an unconditional surrender. The South had to be educated that they lost the war.

The best electable conservative since Reagan is in the White House, we have a solid House majority, and 55 Senate votes, if that's not enough
when will there be enough on our side to fight?

This nomination should have been the fight because it's by no means certain that Bush will get a third nomination -- or that we will get the White House in 2008.