Those who opine she is unqualified are being disingenuous. Had Bush appointed someone with the same qualifications and lack of paper trail, but who had gone on record, even just through public speaking or in memos to ABA committees, pleading for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, opposing gay rights and affirmative action or supporting a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, they would be jumping for joy at the nomination. They wouldn't give a whit what law school she went to or whether she had been a judge. They'd be taking the position that we need non-academics in ivory towers and people with real-world experience like litigators on the Court. As to the cronyism charge, they'd be saying, Hey, Bush won the election, he gets to choose.

Here's a summary of the survey findings:

• The bloggers who thought George Bush made a "bad or terrible decision" in selecting Miers outnumber those who thought he made a "good or excellent decision" by more than 5 to 1.

• The bloggers who "view George Bush less favorably" because of the nomination outnumber those who "view George Bush more favorably" by more than 13 to 1.

• At the moment, only 41% bloggers think George Bush should "continue to support Harriet Miers" while 59% are either "not sure" or think he should "withdraw the nomination".

• Only 33% of bloggers think Republican Senators should "vote to confirm Harriet Miers" while 67% are either "not sure" or would prefer that Republican Senators "vote against Harriet Miers".