Nice try. No, the point of discussion is whether or not Bush ever promised to "appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." I contend that he did not. I take it you cede the point since you are trying to shift the topic.
I don't have the resources to review each and every one of Bush's 2004 stump speaches. If you have done so, please advise.
However as stated before, this "message" has been widely reported and not directly refuted by Bush either. This is typical of politicians to go with the maximum ambiguity.
"BASH: A longtime top Bush aide confirms to CNN Mr. Bush didn't actually publicly pledge a Scalia or a Thomas, but they made no effort to clarify. To conservative activists, it was code. They expected Mr. Bush to pick justices with clear records showing they'd move the court right."
Bush did get much of his support due to not directly refuting this "message". Miers is clearly not to the level of Roberts Scalia, Thomas nor Renquist. This is the point where the ambiguity becomes more clear and many are not happy. Makes no difference on what exactly was said. There is a lot that was unsaid and not refuted and therefore expected. Bush's appointees are successively moving away from the expectation and, yes, creating outrage regarding same.
Why doesn't Bush take the Clintonesque approach and, as in a court of law, say:" I never said that. All of these people are mistaken. I have kept my (non)promise".
Boy, that would fix everything, wouldn't it.