Why Aren't Democrats Vociferously Opposing Harriet Miers?

I'm beginning to wonder, since it is increasingly clear that Bush nominated Miers for the sole purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade, whether Dems have decided that they are now comfortable with/resigned to a post-Roe U.S. and this is why their opposition to her has been tepid. Three reasons to support this theory: First, regardless of who Bush nominates to the position, Dems would have to assume that person would eventually vote to overturn the decision. Whether it's Harriet Miers or one of the more favored candidates that conservatives wished for, the result would likely be the same: Roe overturned. They also realize that their fallback line of defense for abortion rights is the state courts and they are ready to battle there.

The second reason is that of all the names circulated, they think Miers is likelier than most to eventually settle into the leftward drift that tends to happen to so-called "stealth" candidates. Over time, we would be back to the status quo of the O'Connor/Rehnquist court, which seemed to lean more left than right on many other issues. This is a best case scenario for Democrats.

Thirdly, I think Democrats have come to realize that the trump card Republicans have held over the past two elections is the promise to overturn Roe. Take that away, and they believe the Republican coalition will fracture, and many of those people who voted on that single issue would spill back into the Democrat camp. This is probably the strongest argument they have.
By killing Roe, they remove a large, single-issue bloc.

They are ready to make the trade: Roe for elections. Unfortunately, their fallback position is stronger than the Republicans' and I think they realize this now.