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.
Upon further review of the situation, Miers is another step on the path to the eventual nomination of Gonzales.
It is also widely reported and not directly refuted by Bush that he is a blithering idiot, a murderer, a puppet of Karl Rove, 100% responsible for all the black deaths in Louisiana, an extreme right wing conservative, an undercover left wing activist...and the list goes on. But one thing about Bush that both his enemies and proponents agree on is that he is plain spoken and says what he means and means what he says. So now the only way to support the lie that "Bush promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" is to say that by not directly refuting media reports "Bush is speaking in code."
To your credit, I am impressed that you actually tried to find evidence that Bush said what it is claimed he said. But the more you dig, the clearer it must be that Bush never promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Yet, time and again I see opponents of Miers state that Bush broke exactly that promise. That is a lie. It is a made up charge. And if you have to make things up to support your argument, you need to reevaluate your argument. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with his choice of Miers. It is not acceptable to create "facts" and "quotes" to support that disagreement.