It strikes me that you leave out a major part of the President's calculations.  Precisely because of the way he is weakened, it is in Bush's interests to have a knock-down, drag out fight over the nominee.  First, a true battle would distract from Libby's indictment and whatever fallout there might be from it.  Second, it would unite and rally his base when he most needs them.  Of course, he will want to win at the end of the day, but I suspect he thinks he would, even and perhaps especially if there is a filibuster; and frankly, he might be right, regardless of the nominee.  And given the value in distraction at the moment and for the near future, even just the fight might seem worth it.

even BEFORE miers' nomination was withdrawn, richard viguerie said, "President Bush desperately needed to have an ideological fight with the left to redefine himself and reenergize his political base, which is in shock and dismay over his big-government policies."

david tuerck, a hard-line conservative said, "Whether this president, besieged as he is on many fronts, can salvage his presidency depends now how strongly he can resist this kind of pressure."

i think bush is under a great deal of pressure to nominate an honest-to-god (pardon the cheap pun), litmus-tested, paper-trailed, hard right, dobson-approved candidate... he may not feel he has the stomach for the fight but, if he decides to go with a moderate to avoid it, the fundies are going to come after him with rakes and hoes... they damn near did over miers as it was... 

And, yes, I DO take it personally

First, a true battle would distract from Libby's indictment and whatever fallout there might be from it.  Second, it would unite and rally his base when he most needs them.

Third, in showdowns between presidents and Congress, the public backs the president.  

Will moderate Republicans want to see Bush battered on two consecutive nominations?  I think that's what it all comes down to.    

In keeping with my earlier suggestion of focusing on the angry, insulted figure of Arlen Specter as much as on the Gang of 14 (after all, the nomination has to go through Specter before it gets to the 14), I think that Alito is a much safer bet for Bush, because he's a more familiar and local figure to the Judiciary chairman.

It is true that both Bush and the right want a huge battle that they will win. But who doesn't? But if it's going to be a huge battle, then by definition there's going to be significant uncertainty about the outcome. Can Bush afford a loss to the Democrats following a loss the far right? I doubt it. So he wants a fight that he's sure to win, but if he's sure to win, the Dems won't fight -- why: Because we're not idiots! That's the story with Roberts -- sure it would have been tempting to fight Roberts to the last man standing, but we would have lost, looked irresponsible, and  is there any reason to think that we would get someone more to our liking? So there's no fight over Roberts.

But the calculation for much of the right is different -- they want the fight. If they get the nominee, but not the fight, they will be disappointed. Scalito might do the trick -- he'll get a minor fight on the floor, but not in committee, but still be slightly favored to be confirmed, if Bush is willing to take that risk. But the idea of wanting a fight and being sure to win is as silly as wanting to buy a stock with a big potential gain and no risk.

If Democrats filibuster, how do you think Republicans on the Mod Squad would react?

Given that (a) it's apparent that the President will nominate somebody who is assuredly conservative and (b) that the decision will probably be between Luttig and Alito, I would prefer Alito, though for reasons unrelated to his qualifications, judicial temperament, and likely behavior on the Court.

Either way, confirmation is assured. I don't see how Bush can lose here. So the Dems should not fight either of these nominees. They need to realize that Bush wants the nomination to be a distraction from the scandals surrounding his Administration and his party, because those scandals are where he is weakest. The Democrats would be wise to keep the focus on three issues: 1. GOP / Administration corruption; 2. the Administration's pro-torture efforts contra McCain-Graham (an issue on which they have a lot of allies on the other side of the aisle); 3. Iraq - both the campaign to deceive the American people into war, and Administration's disastrous post-war planning policy.

It's tempting to want to win every fight, and to think that because this President is clearly politically weakened, you can win more battles. But the White House isn't dumb- it's clear that they want to use this nomination to try and regain political capital. If progressives bite and try to wage a campaign against the nominee- who is guaranteed to be a Roberts-type with unassailable credentials-, they'll be venturing into territory in which they can't win, and ceding the ground that they've already gained through the revelations of GOP corruption. This is as important a moment for the Dems as it is for the GOP: they can play it smart by focusing on Plamegate, the fradulent case for war, and DeLay- issues where they've got political advantages over the other side-, or they can try what I'd characterize as a fairly dumb strategy of trying to torpedo a nominee who, although certain to be quite conservative, will nevertheless be impeccably qualified. This isn't to say that the Dems need to vote YES for either Alito or Luttig if either of these judges come before the entire Senate as the Associate Justice nominee. Alito and Luttig are both very well-qualified, but it's pretty clear that they would be bad for the country. So Dems should vote no (though I'm quite confident that some Gang of 14 Dems would vote "yes" on both of these nominees). They just don't need to make a very big deal about it. They need to let this one go and keep the focus on the three issues I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

But who listens to us college kids anyway? :)

The suggestion that there are any Republican moderates left in the US Senate is pretty amusing. No Republican senator will vote against the next Bush SCOTUS nominee either in committee or on the floor.  The question for Democrats is: To fight or not to fight? As comments in this thread demonstrate, there are reasonable arguments for either option. Why fight if you're going to lose? My answer:

• Because losing a battle may be a step toward winning the war;
• because Bush & his allies are weak & ought to be made to fight on many fronts;
• because Democrats need to demonstrate moral clarity by drawing a line in the sand.
  

For reasons similar to Mark's, I think this is the real question, and that's 40 votes against cloture, not against the nominee.

If the nominee is such that the Dems can muster 40 to sustain a filibuster, then you have the prospect of the nuclear option being deployed by an SEC-besieged Frist and a Plamegate-besieged Cheney. Then the question becomes, do McCain et al want to go to the mat for Frist and Cheney, with their obvious troubles and uncertain futures?

The Dems who voted to punt on the filibuster are looking pretty smart right now, btw. The nuclear option almost certainly would have succeeded then, and it very well may not now.

You're all wrong.

Either way, confirmation is assured. I don't see how Bush can lose here.

There's no guaratee of confirmation if Democrats clearly lay the consequences before the people.  As I said in my earlier post, moderate Republicans must know that their jobs are at stake.  We have the constituency for these issues, and we have to ask for nothing more than a moderate on the Court to reflect the moderate views of the nation.  

So the Dems should not fight either of these nominees. They need to realize that Bush wants the nomination to be a distraction from the scandals surrounding his Administration and his party, because those scandals are where he is weakest.

Defeating Bush on the nominee is better than keeping focus on his scandals.  There is more to the nomination than simply the Supreme Court.  The nomination is about the 2006 elections, and getting people to realize that our policies are better than the Republicans is much more important than telling people that the Republicans are incompetent.  We need this fight on the substance of the issues so that Dems can set up issues for '06, so they can practice, and so that they can start talking about what we believe in.

Even if we lose the confirmation fight, and we do all those things well, then we can be well prepared to win in Nov. of 2006.  This isn't a short term issue--it's long term.

The Democrats would be wise to keep the focus on three issues: 1. GOP / Administration corruption; 2. the Administration's pro-torture efforts contra McCain-Graham (an issue on which they have a lot of allies on the other side of the aisle); 3. Iraq - both the campaign to deceive the American people into war, and Administration's disastrous post-war planning policy.

Just saying that Bush is incompetent isn't enough.  We have to have the better arguments and the better policies.

they'll be venturing into territory in which they can't win, . . . or they can try what I'd characterize as a fairly dumb strategy of trying to torpedo a nominee who, although certain to be quite conservative, will nevertheless be impeccably qualified.

We can win this, and again, even if we lose it sets us up for the elections.  You must realize that this is about policy and not just qualifications.

That's the argument we can win.  That's the fight we should have.

My vote is with Alito simply because Bill Kristol cited Alito as the ideal candidate to replace Miers this morning on Fox. Kristol was wearing that Cheshire smile of his when he reeled off Alito's name and qualifications, the same smile he wore when he demurely denied that he had influenced the decision to withdraw the Miers nomination.

Since the mention of Alito's name came up right after someone "congratulated" Kristol on being the only one on the panel to have predicted Miers's pullout, I have to wonder if he doesn't have some inside info and wants to be on the record again so his influence is apparent to all. I can't see otherwise why he would mention Alito and not Luttig, and he didn't give Luttig's name even a mention.