I think Tony Blankley pretty much has it right:
Of course I would have vastly and justifiably preferred President Bush to have chosen a certain, proven, intellectually formidable legal warrior (of whom he
had an abundant choice). But I have to admit on reflection that even with the dull, dutiful Dallas evangel, it is much more likely than not, that 10 years from now she will be voting quite reliably with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and the one or two more generally conservative justices who George Bush will probably have the chance to place on the court in the remaining three and a third years of his presidency.
It could have been so much more. But it is probably enough. And in politics, when we probably get enough -- we should be thankful.
Blankley's written an excellent and thoughtful piece. Read the whole thing. If you're angry or confused about Miers, it will help.
Topping that one off, Paul Greenberg has a fine, philosophical piece in Townhall today. His concluding paragraph:
Harriet Ellan Miers now emerges out of the background into . . . what? History,
fame, controversy, celebrity? Probably all of the above. All Americans will wish
her and the law well as both go under the magnifying glass of public contention.
It'll be a test - not only for the nominee but for all those questioning and
appraising her. Instead of just another partisan fight, it could prove an
education - if we will let it.
To see how Greenberg got there, read his piece; you'll find it to be a pleasant respite from the anguish and anger pouring out of most other conservative columns.
UPDATE: I agree with Hugh Hewitt that David Frum needs to calm down. The writers over at National Review are getting close to going over the top.
UPDATE II: Michael Ledeen of NRO offers a different view from Frum's.