The Wall Street Journal runs an editorial today calling the Harriet Miers nomination “a political blunder of the first order.” Some excerpts:

Regarding Ms. Miers’s qualifications, we aren’t among those who think an Ivy League pedigree or judgeship is a prerequisite for a Supreme Court seat. But the process of getting to know Ms. Miers has been the opposite of reassuring. Her courtesy calls on Senators have gone so poorly that the White House may stop them altogether.

I agree with this entirely, by the way — as well as this point:

In earlier and less polarized times, someone without broad Constitutional experience might have avoided this trouble. But after decades of Republican anger over judicial activism, and 20 years of disappointing GOP Court selections, a nominee who was a blank slate was bound to get pounded. Mr. Bush has set her up to be hit by a withering political crossfire.

The editorial concludes:

Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation. But so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things happen when a President decides that “diversity,” personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years.

Excerpts don’t do it justice. Read it all.

The Journal stops short of actively calling for Miers’s withdrawal or defeat. But I think that the frank nature of the editorial adds momentum to the anti-Miers movement. The Journal‘s editorial voice, like that of Robert Bork, is not easily ignored. It will be interesting to see how Miers supporters react to today’s piece.