Or maybe the President did what was right for the movement rather than what would've made the members of the movement happy.
His personality is more like that of a parent than that of a petty politician. The Left regularly underestimates him. It seems many on the Right have fallen for the same kind of elitist thinking that causes one to underestimate him.
I swear - he's outsmarted every single one of his opponents, and not it seems as if he's outsmarted a large number of his own supporters.
And everyone from the Left to the disappointed Right are still calling him an idiot who got lucky a few times.
GWB: HBS MBA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070924/posts
The American Thinker February 3, 2004 | Thomas Lifson
*****
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, at least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
His critics and detractors always overplay their hand when trying to rip his decisions apart.
How? Where?
Got anymore of that Kool-aid?
The trouble with relying on personal loyalty the way he did here is that loyalties change depending on the positions of the persons. When Henry II made Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury he firmly believed his old friend and crony would run the church as Henry wanted. It turned out so profoundly the other way that Henry became utterly infuriated with Becket and had him murdered.
As Peggy says, getting a lifetime appointment with tremendous, unaccountable power changes a person, often profoundly. The only reasonable assurance we have that this won't happen in case of any Supreme Court appointee is if that individual has a consistent record of originalism and has spent most of his or her life fighting the good fight. That doesn't exist with Miers and it's why so many of us feel so badly about this pick.