Christians DO Hate Women

Let's make a little bet:
I'll bet you 20 hot dogs that the next person to be nominated for the Supreme Court will be a man. Not a woman, but a man.
I personally think this whole thing was a sham. And no, I'm not some crazy conspiracy theory dude on public access. There's just a lot of things that don't make sense to me. This whole nomination was odd, more so than I would have expected. Let me take you down my train of thought. Since my dream is to be a brilliant political mind, lets see if I can crack this code.
Okay. Harriet Miers was a block play to instill a conservative man. I always wondered why they just didn't nominate a Scalia type crazy person, instead of Harriet Miers, with her no record, no opinion. Now I look and I see that they never wanted her there at all. Karl Rove is one of the best political tactic players out there, and I just couldn't believe that he thought this was a good idea. So here's the play:
Harriet Miers comes on. A woman, with no judging background, and nothing to present a conservative (or liberal) bias. This angers the ENTIRE republican party, who join together to admonish this crappy ass choice. Harriet then blows every play she can, making her look impish and stupid. Trent Lott said she was very "inarticulate and un-opinionated." Her questionnaire was answered in the style of a high school student. Which angers the right even more, which only unites them more.
So then she withdrawals her nomination, which pleases the right. Which makes them even more united, and now, with his mice all in a row, all Bush has to do is to play the pied piper with his super conservative choice, and bam! Instant approval rating.
So now he's got his base back, but why go to all that trouble? Because they don't want a woman. After John Roberts, Bush had practically no choice but to nominate a woman. After all, Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement leaves only one woman, and the public would have been in outrage had he not replaced at least one of his nominees with a woman. But why then did he pick Harriet Miers? Why not just go with a safe, conservative woman who will appeal to Republicans and enough Democrats to get her safely through? Why go with a lost cause?
Enough distraction was created through this mess that I doubt anybody's gonna care if they nominate a man. Hell, maybe he'll even be black or something. I've heard all the news networks start clamoring about Alberto Gonzales again, along with whatever other Yahoo they can think of. But I have yet to see anybody talk about a woman nominee, and I haven't hear anything about the fact that it should still be a woman. I could never figure out why this was the best woman for the job. Now I know that she was the best person for the job, just not the obvious one.
See, I don't think they trust women with the abortion issue. Justice O'Connor was a moderate conservative, yet she always ruled against repeal. Maybe they think that the chance of a woman justice siding with another woman in an abortion case is too much risk. They want to really push the agenda, and they simply just don't trust women. I'm sure it's not that simple, but I can't think of any other reason why they are going to all this trouble.
20 hot dogs are sitting here on the table. The bet is: It's a very VERY conservative man, and all the Republicans love him, and he's passed without a hitch.
Let's hope I lose.