My reading shows that Gonzales is not pro-abortion. He is a strict interpretationist, which is why he has ruled against pro-life in the past. The problem isn't Gonzales beliefs, but his integrity. He is too ideologically conservative to legislate from the bench.
The question on the legality of abortion is a legislative matter. Get him on the court, and I think Bush will be proven to be right about Gonzales. All that will matter after Gonzaels on the court is whether or not we can pass a law giving "personage" to unborn children, which would eliminate 1/3 of the argument used to justify the Roe v. Wade decision. And if you knock out the "privacy" clause, because a right to privacy does not give a person a right to harm another person, then Roe v. Wade fails, and any new laws criminalizing late term abortions and mid term abortions will become feasible. If we can give a conservative court the basis to overturn Roe v. Wade, a statutory basis, then I think we can win the battle.
Furthermore it is you that is foolish if you don't think both the judicial and legislative bodies move (work) in increments. They most certainly do! (read some history!).
Federal judges are appointed by the President (and sworn in by the legislative branch) as those branches move (via elections over time) so do our courts! (in increments!).
And lastly, Gonzalez would be movement (an increment) in the right direction over O'Connor.
Additionally as I stated before GWB knows Gonzalez on a personal level (as well as on a professional level) and knows the man much better than you do! Much better. I trust his judgment as both CIC and as POTUS.
I still disagree with you on the incrementalism aspect. The Court is not supposed to be an incremental body - it is to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Incrementalism lends credence to the Consitution being a living and breathing one, and allows the justices to read into the Constitution their own personal (political) beliefs, like O'Connor has done, and which I gather you would oppose. You seem to be saying to put someone on the Court who will not overturn Roe, Bollinger, Lawrence, and other abominations, but will somehow lay the groundwork for their being overturned until society is ready to handle it. But the longer these travesties remain as "law", the harder it will be to overcome, regardless of how much "groundwork" is laid (see the Miranda history). Society sure as heck wasn't "readied" by "moderate" decisions leading us to Roe or Lawrence, so no point in waiting for them to get them overturned.