I heard on Hannity today that the WH is saying that their judge will be "mainstream".
As long as Bush and his people don't define 'mainstream' the same way that the media and the Dems/Left does, and instead define it by the positions held by most Americans on most of the hot-button issues facing the Court, then it will be fine.
As others have stated, most Americans oppose gay marriage. Most don't think illegal aliens should be given status akin to citizens. Most oppose abortion on demand (yet they support Roe...but I think that if Roe were overturned, then support for Roe would fade the people who are marginally pro-choice realize that the procedure remains mostly legal in large parts of the country). Most believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one. Most don't think private property should be seized for shopping malls. Most don't think that the Boy Scouts should be bullied by radical homosexual activist groups.
I think the GOP has done a pretty bad job fighting for the word and mantle 'mainstream'. Of course they are at a disadvantage with the Left's domination of the mainstream media, but that is no excuse for being timid when extremists like Ted Kennedy and Ralph Neas have the nerve to get up and try to speak for mainstream values. Several times now I've heard Dems/Left spokesmen speak of judges like Ginsburg being mainstream because they got over 90 votes from the Senate. That is absurd of course, as all it proves is that either (a) the GOP has been AWOL in fighting the Court-imposed social/cultural revolution, or (b) the GOP didn't want to sink to the levels of the Dems and do to her what they did to Bork. Maybe its both, but at the very least the GOP could point out how Scalia too was confirmed with over 90 votes, so if that is a mark of being 'mainstream' then Bush should have no qualms about nominating someone in the Scalia mold.
He shouldn't anyway, as he should live up to his campaign promise to do so, but you never know.