One could oppose Roberts’ nomination ultimately on the basis of disagreeing with him; it would be a very hard sell to claim he was an Adminstration crony. But for Miers, there simply was no other justification for her nomination. I could imagine nearly any Republican president nomating Roberts; nobody but Bush could possibly have nominated Miers.

I think your hope is reasonably justified; I’ve been reading an unusual number of conservative blogs lately, trying to get a bead on what the objections have been to Miers, and most of them have been dismissive of the administration’s attempts to paint her as an evangelical (which itself seems to be a codeword for “She’ll overturn Roe”); instead, the objections are either, “She’s not qualified” (which perception was only increased by the recent release of her nigh-incoherent speeches) or else, “Even if she makes the right decisions, she’ll do so for the wrong reasons.” For an example of the latter, see George Will:

“Thoughtful conservatives’ highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution’s meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.”

The President, true, might be moved to nominate an extremist out of pique, but given that much of the complaining about Miers came from the center (the religious right was more or less behind her because they were sure she’d overturn Roe V. Wade), I hope he’s savvy enough to realize that would be even more self-defeating than Miers’ nomination was. Darn it, the guy did a reasonably good job with Roberts, why can’t he do it again?