It's Not What You Know, It's Who You Know

At The Corner and elsewhere, there's happy chat going on about the possibility that Ted Olson could be the SCOTUS nominee. I believe that's nothing more than chat; it makes sense to me that in order to move swiftly, the Pres. will go with someone who's been vetted recently --likely one of his own recently confirmed appellate court judges.
But I raise the apparent acceptability of Ted Olson to all the same players who slammed Miers before giving her a hearing to illustrate a point. I suspect Ted Olson would be a bad choice. Nothing against him: a good man, someone beloved in Conservative Washington. But, because I have two good friends who worked under him at Justice, I have reason to believe he will be squishy on many issues dear to Conservatives: the environment, affirmative action, the so-called "life issues."
I emphasize this is from nothing but hearsay and I could be persuaded otherwise. It's not my purpose to start rumors or besmirch him, but simply to explain my gut feeling. My mistrust is not based on anything he has ever said or written directly, but on --let's call them penumbras and emanations, shall we-- my friends picked up from the cases he chose to pursue --or not pursue-- and which arguments he chose. So, judicially speaking, I don't trust him, and would be very disappointed if he were the nominee.
Olson is not a sitting judge and since as Solicitor General he was an advocate for Administration positions, not his own, what does anyone really know about his judicial philosophy? Again, I in no way mean to pick on him. I just wonder this morning what has become of the argument that only a person with a proven Conservative track record on all the hot button issues is an acceptable candidate for SCOTUS?
Hugh Hewitt wraps up this episode in the NYT. I think he overstates the damage a bit; a good fight can be as energizing as anything else. I just wish I felt more assured at the end that all the pundits had their eyes on reshaping the Judiciary. Throw a fit about Harriet Miers but accept Ted Olson? What can they be thinking? The kicker: thanks to this little episode, Sandra Day will get to cast a vote not only on the assisted suicide case that's already been argued, but also likely on the parental notification case. Everybody feel happy about that?
UPDATE: A friend sent me a link to something a little more damning to Olson than my penumbras. Again, Olson doesn't seem to be in the running, so my objection is not so much to him. I am calling into question the criteria "the Right" is using to judge its judges.