Bill Kristol begs Miers to withdraw her nomination

There are two groups of conservatives unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, those who are unhappy with her credentials and those who are afraid she is not wingnutty enough. Bill Kristol can be counted among the first group and has asked her to withdraw her nomination for the good of the conservative movement, for the good of the President and for her own good. What Is To Be Done?

George W. Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was at best an error, at worst a disaster. There is no need now to elaborate on Bush's error. He has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction. There is a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it.

What does Kristol think should happen?

So what now? Bush has made this unfortunate nomination. What is to be done? The best alternative would be for Miers to withdraw. Is such an idea out of the question? It should not be. She has not aspired all of her life or even until very recently to serve on the Supreme Court. And her nomination has hurt the president whom she came to Washington to serve. Would a withdrawal be an embarrassment to the president? Sure. But the embarrassment would fade. Linda Chavez at the beginning of the first term, and Bernard Kerik at the beginning of the second, withdrew their nominations for cabinet positions and there was no lasting effect. In this case, Miers could continue to serve the president as White House counsel. The president's aides would explain that he miscalculated out of loyalty and admiration for her personal qualities. And he could quickly nominate a serious, conservative, and well-qualified candidate for the court vacancy.

Kristol mentions that the confirmation hearings could be unpleasant.

These hearings will not be easy for Miers, as she will have to at once demonstrate a real knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence, reassure conservative constitutionalists, and presumably placate Democrats as well.

As Jazz told us when it was first suggested that Miers might be the nominee, Harriet Miers knows where the skeletons in Bush's past are buried. To think that this won't come up during the hearings is naive. This could further erode Bush's already diminishing political wealth.

To make matters worse over at The Left Coaster pessimist reports that the pot is calling the kettle black; Bork calls Miers' nomination a "disaster".

Update
Over at Blogs for Bush they think Kristol may be backing down a bit from his previous column. They use this paragraph as evidence:

It may be--we can certainly hope--that Miers will be very impressive and that conservatives can support her in good conscience. But if not, they will be doing a favor to the conservative cause, the Republican party, and--believe it or not--the final three years of the Bush administration by voting no on Miers's confirmation.

And then say this:

What this amounts to is preparation just in case Miers turns in a good performance at the hearings...you know, in case she provides evidence for a decision about her which will make the emotional response some initially had look rather silly. Of course, you prepare for what you think may eventuate - and the more conservatives actually learn about Miers, the better she looks.

I don't see it, I don't really think that Kristol thinks she is going to look any better and if he did why would he ask he to step down. I see some CYA and nothing more.