Ah! But none of those were JUDICIAL nominees. Could it be that the aid he received from Harriet Miers had something to do with that? (BTW he didn't hire Dick Clark--he was a leftover from the Clinton Admin)
I'm sorry, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that out of all the outstanding judges who were considered, even among those that have already been confirmed by this Senate, he could not find a better pick.
But you don't have access to their entire history nor have you spoken directly to them. Bush and Miers and company have. What makes you so informed on this issue?
You don't pick Supreme Court justices like you pick your friends. You pick someone who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. There is no record of this nominee doing so. Other candidates have extensive records of doing so.
Once again. Miers is emminently qualified. If he didn't know her for 20 years, he would presumably require a lot of background information on her. Since he did, he didn't.
Imagine you are highering a programmer. You interview lots of candidates some seem smart, some *claim* to have good educations, but are they dependable? Could they be snowing you? Will they quit in a month? You don't really know and you have a product line coming out in a very short time and the future of your entire small company depends on its success. Then you realize that your programmer-friend who has been "helping you out" has produced nothing but top quality work for the year he's been working with you. He doesn't have an MIT degree, but you know he's really good, everyone in your company raves about him, and you know personally that he won't let you down. Maybe you wouldn't hire him based on his resume, but you don't need a resume since you've seen HIM work and you've seen HIS work.
Is that cronyism?
You should look at this another way: The President examined ALL the candidates you and I like. He REJECTED them. They all had an element of risk involved regarding their philosophy, how they would rule, or whether they would pass the Senate. Rather than gamble, he went with what he KNEW would be a good choice. That's not cronyism.
It would be cronyism if she were unqualified. But she's not unqualifed. Even Rush says so. Even David Frum says so. She's one of the top 100 lawyers. He wouldn't have thought of her if he didn't know her, but knowing her is what made the choice appealing. It wasn't a gamble. Do you want him gambling on this nomination?
I appreciate your point of view but I don't see that it boils down to anything but a sophisticated version of "trust me". And I don't automatically trust a President that generously gives taxpayer money to African tyrants and Arab terrorists alike, while assisting millions of aliens in the violation of our sovereignity.