James Dobson (a man I don't agraee with on a number of issues) is considered a political insider regarding the Miers nomination, and it's obvious that he's not telling all he knows, especially about certain reassurances he's said to have been given. Nevertheless, he makes an interesting observation in today's Washington Times:

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said he spoke with Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove on Oct. 1 -- two days before the Miers nomination -- and was told that "Harriet Miers was at the top of the short list."

Also on that list were several candidates that many conservatives say they would have preferred, Mr. Dobson said on his radio program that was recorded yesterday and will be broadcast today.

"Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list," he said, according to a transcript obtained last night. "They would not allow their names to be considered because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it."

White House officials could not be reached for comment last night.

Mr. Dobson also said that no one gave him any assurances that Miss Miers would rule any certain way in specific court cases but only that her judicial philosophy "was consistent with the promises that President Bush had made when he was campaigning."

Mr. Specter had suggested he might call Mr. Dobson and Mr. Rove to testify before his committee about any inside knowledge they might have about Miss Miers -- a threat that has only heightened the angst many conservatives feel about the nomination.

What intrigues me more is the reason Dobson gave as the reason why other, better known (and presumably better qualified) candidates on Rove's "short list" demanded to be withdrawn from consideration:

They would not allow their names to be considered because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it.

It's all too easy to forget that just because someone is a prominent legal thinker (whether in the judiciary, academia, or government) that does not guarantee that he or she is a seasoned veteran of high-profile political hardball, especially as it's currently played. Much less does it guarantee that their family members have a clue about how to play political hardball, or that they can handle vicious, personal, ad hominem attacks. For the most part, even prominent judges in the various appellate courts are not celebrities at all. Yeah, they may be well known enough in legal circles that their asses will get kissed by lawyers at cocktail parties, but their wives can go shopping with impunity, their kids can attend school without incident, and there'd no reason to expect otherwise. I'd be willing to bet that few prominent legal thinkers have devoted much time to indoctrinating their familes on the finer arts of how to practice and survive character assassination and political blackmail. (Most likely, they've been so busy working themselves to the bone that they see their private lives as, well, private. Some of them might even imagine their private lives provide sanctuary from the "outside world!")

It's one thing to pluck someone like that from the safety and security of a normal life, place him on Karl Rove's "short list," and then expect him or her to go through a massive personal investigation followed by a grueling ordeal before Congress and national television. An ambitious, politically motivated person with solid convictions and who wants to serve can probably handle it.

But what about their families? Unlike the situation of high profile politicians, most judges' and government employees' spouses and children were not raised and do not live in conspiracy-driven, Machiavellian households. How are they expected to handle ugly, personal nastiness which will suddenly erupt in their lives? They are ordinary people with ordinary problems. They might have sex, they might drink, they might struggle with depression, or sexual insecurities, or they might even have (gasp) taken an occasional recreational drug.

Everyone remembers what happened to Judge Bork. The process went from being political to personal. In the intervening years, it's gone from personal to really personal, and the focus can now fairly be directed at every member of the nominee's family, regardless of age.

It would be normal and expected for any potential nominee to tremble over the prospect of Senate hearings, and personal criticism in the media (and now on thousands of blogs, not all of which attempt to be fair). But I'm thinking of Justice Roberts' four year old boy, who, for his father's crime of finding himself nominated, was immediately accused of being gay. Fortunately for him, he was young enough that it probably wasn't too traumatic.

Roberts' son provides an important lesson, though, that children -- no matter what their age -- are now fair game. So is everything else. Before they even consider that nomination, candidates must think of what the most vicious columnists and bloggers might do and say -- to even the most vulnerable members of their previously private families.

If you don't like it, get the hell off Karl Rove's short list!

(How to avoid getting on that list in the first place is another, longer, topic.)