From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - There is still much to learn about Harriet E. Miers, but in naming her to the Supreme Court, President Bush revealed something about himself: that he has no appetite, at a time when he and his party are besieged by problems, for an all-out ideological fight.
Many of his most passionate supporters on the right had hoped and expected that he would make an unambiguously conservative choice to fulfill their goal of clearly altering the court's balance, even at the cost of a bitter confirmation battle. By instead settling on a loyalist with no experience as a judge and little substantive record on abortion, affirmative action, religion and other socially divisive issues, Mr. Bush shied away from a direct confrontation with liberals and in effect asked his base on the right to trust him on this one.
The question is why.
On one level, his reasons for trying to sidestep a partisan showdown are obvious, and come down to his reluctance to invest his diminished supply of political capital in a battle over the court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04assess.html?ex=1286078400&en=c698161595f7a7b0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss----
Historically, Karl Rove fights back by upping the ante to divert attention. An controversial candidate would draw attention away from the other problems the administration faces. Bush didn't back down on Bolton, for example. Now they seem to have backed down (at least by some people's interpretation, including many conservatives)
Is this the classic moment - the moment where the other side blinks?
Only time will tell, but regardless, we need to push hard and keep pushing while we have them on the run.