The article "Key to Choice: Presidential Power: Bush's Real Mission for Harriet Miers" is the first I've seen that manages to make some really convincing sense out of Bush's decision to nominate Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court. Not that I'm at all confident she'll support abortion rights either (I'm more inclined to believe she'll oppose them), but if banning abortion were his top priority, I do think he could have found someone who could be relied upon with more absolute certainty to ban it. So the question became: If banning abortion wasn't Bush's top priority in choosing who to nominate, what was his top priority? This article argues that his top priority, and the reason he felt Harriet Miers was the best person to nominate, was his desire to expand presidential powers, uphold PATRIOT Act police-state laws, and promote further raping of children by the U.S. military in prisons like Abu Ghraib.
I still don't know that it's possible to get Bush to nominate anyone else who wouldn't be every bit as bad. But I don't think we should be blind to Harriet Miers' faults just because the creepy right-wingers don't like her either.