SCOTUS nominee

It seems that the social conservatives over at RedState.org are in a lather about Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers. It seems that Federal Elections records indicate that she gave money in the 80s to Al Gore for President and to Lloyd Benson's Senatorial campaign. At the time, Gore was vying to be a challenger to George Bush's father. By the mid 90s, however, Miers had played switch hitter and was giving money to Pete Sessions and Phil Graham (and, of course, gave money to Bush campaigns). More here and here (the former is the link to RedState where you can read the lather as well as the flip-flopping; the latter is the link to Newsmeat which is the complete record of Miers' contributions).

Update: Another social conservative blog's readers join the fray.

I've said all along that if I were a conservative, I'd be highly upset with Bush's agenda. At the time I was referring to fiscal conservatives, however, and not social conservatives. Keep in mind, social conservatives are not upset because they know how Miers will represent abortion and other issues on the court. In fact, they are upset because they don't know how she will represent those issues (they weren't happy with Roberts for the same reason), which is going to put them in line with the Democrats who will raise those same issues. Social conservatives wanted a strong, clearly anti-abortion candidate (politically inviable, though such a candidate may be). I suppose this is one of those times when comparisons between Bush and Reagan are apt. Like Reagan, Bush has spoken all of the proper rhetoric to the social conservatives, but also like Reagan, when an opportunity came to deliver on that promise, Bush looked at the political realities and turned his back on the constituency with the least power. Not to be left out, Clinton also played this sort of political maneuver. When the gays in the military issue came before him, President Clinton turned his back on his social liberal supporters faster than a NASCAR racer in the final stretch of a competitive race.

Perhaps it's fitting then, that social conservatives might find themselves on the same side as social liberals in fighting this nomination. Though they have different end goals, both sides have found themselves quickly dismissed by the White House when Presidents that sought their votes to win elections found it inconvenient to take a stand with them when issues dear to their hearts came up for debate.

Update II: More from disillusioned conservatives including Malkin, Kristol, et al here.