Interesting reactions

I thought it would be interesting to point out the differences in reactions from two people on opposite ends of the spectrum.

"The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. ... When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials."
- Eugene Delgaudio, President of the Public Advocate, a conservative advocacy group

"With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment."
- Ralph G. Neas, President of People for the American Way, a liberal public advocacy group

This tells me that for arguements point, she is at least some where in the middle. It also shows a key difference in how each side looks at things, which in my view, says a lot.