My answer: I have no idea. I guess I'm supposed to have one, but I don't. I find compelling arguments from both the Chillin' and the Illin'. But one thought that did strike me was that it made this Economist story look pretty prescient, written a few days before the Miers pick. It describes tensions in the conservative movement, including "conservatives of faith v conservatives of doubt", "insurgent v. establishment" conservatives and "business v religious" conservatives. What I think we're finding is that Miers isn't necessarily a standard-bearer for the faith, insurgent, religious conservatives but that these groups are seen by the other side as having the upper hand for so long, and those are the groups that are defending her. Chances are as well that few of them show up at events like those that Robert Novak or John Fund are invited to.

The rebuttal to those critics is usually that the religious/insurgent/faith groups are what elected Bush and thus they are owed these selections. Assuming that in a second term Bush is able to cater to his own preferences, and if he is to be considered as on those sides of the divides, the Miers nomination and the administration's intransigence towards its critics seems to fit.