I hope that this withdrawal is the trough of this presidency, and that he'll quickly nominate a worthy candidate. My suggestion (agreeing with some over at The Corner)--Ted Olson. He's got sterling credentials, and it would be very tough for the Democrats to beat him up in the hearings, because he'll bring a natural sympathy due to his loss in the war.

Oh, and by the way, are these people serious? The conspiracy mongery on the left apparently knows no bounds.

[Update a few minutes later]

I'm listening to DiFi, who just informed us that Miers' answers to her questions were not fulsome. I continue to be amazed that California chooses to have two of the dimmest bulbs in the Senate (and that's a tough competition) represent them in that body.

First, the Feinstein link doesn't work. Second, she's been "fulsome" for years (see here, here, and here).

Great news on the Supreme Court front. Let's hope bush makes the most of his Do-over.

Somewhat O/T regarding dim bulb Senators. I'll stack Maryland’s current stable of Senators against any other state’s in a dimness contest. They just happen to be of the school where they keep their dimness quiet, instead of broadcasting it like the California and Massachusetts entries. Check ‘em out on w1kipedia sometime.

Barbara Mikulski - 18 years in the Senate no discernable accomplishments
Paul Sarbanes - 28 years nada,zip,zilch

Both of them are pretty much lock step votes for every liberal special interest out there. It’s surprising neither of them has been talked about as viable presidential candidates for the Dems.
At least Sarbanes is retiring next year, although I don’t know if anyone will notice.

P.S. your filter will not allow links to w1kipedia

The link is fixed, but it wasn't a Feinstein link--it's a link to the dictionary. I was listening to Feinstein on Fox News.

Rand, please give a little more info on your "are they serious?" links. Now, people who think at Barbara Olson didn't die on 9-11 can claim one more "interested party" because I clicked on the link to their site. If I'd known it was a 9-11 conspiracy site, I wouldn't have checked it out.

I'll throw Pennslvania's two Senators into a dim bulb competition. Personally, I think they've got the inner track, but reasonable people can disagree. The Senate is a target rich environment of dim bulbs.

And TeeJ, Sarbanes does so have an 'accomplishment': The Sarbanes-Oxley Act! Or, as some people call it, The Accountants Full Employment Act. (To be fair, though, every accountant I know HATES that legislation.)

But Sarbanes 'acomplishment' just goes to show it's better when Senators DON'T do anything. So rethink that criticism of the do-nothings....

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a good one for keeping software developers like me employed too. Every publically traded company I've visited as a consultant knows the impact and is spending money. Even one private corp was in on the act because their clients demanded it. That one act has caused an impressive set of ripples.

I know of Mikulski through her rabid work defending NASA interests in her state. Don't knock her. I may not like what she does at times, but she does it well.

While the positions of California's two senators and Massachusetts' two senators leave much to be desired, no state can top Washington in the bulb dimness department. We're talking night-vision goggles required, here.