One of the things that amazes me about the Miers nomination is the
White House’s lack of foresight.  Many commentators argue that her
nomination was made to avoid a fight–she is a stealth candidate.

This may have been the motivation, but what a disastrous political
miscalculation.  Was it really that difficult to think that the
Miers nomination would be opposed by many conservatives?  The
President has traded a possible political fight with Democrats for an
even worse political fight with Republicans.  The Administration
is having to use significant political capital to get Republicans on
board. 

Even assuming, as some, including Thomas Sowell,
have suggested, that the President could not fight the Democrats
because of the weak Senate Republican majority, it is still easier to
convince a few Republican Senators to support the nomination than
trying to convince numerous Republican Senators and your entire
base.  Also, the presumption that one of the many very qualified
candidates would have caused a problem with the Republican “moderates”
is not something I would agree with–have we forgotten about John
Roberts? 

In addition, the President rightly or wrongly had already been accused
of cronyism especially recently when former FEMA director Michael
Brown’s qualifications were called into question.  In light of
this perception, it certainly did not make political sense to nominate
a close confidante that would exacerbate the cronyism perception.

Of course, with a critical nomination to the Supreme Court, principles
and not politics should be the primary basis for the pick (at least
that is the hope).  However, it seems to me that poor political
judgment had more to do with this nomination than sound
principles.  This is not to say that somehow this is an
unprincipled nomination, but it does mean that misguided political
factors played too large of a role.  There simply is no other way
to explain the nomination.