I think you 'misunderestimate' Bush. You don't think he knows he was engaging in semantic political gamesmanship with his 'most qualified' comment ? You think he is not aware of the weak republican support in the Senate ?
I do not rubber stamp everything Bush does, but I have taken a lot of time to study Bush tactics. It is easy to see why he confounds and confuses people, but always seems to prevail in the end.
My personal opinion ? It is because he is not a politician's politician. The vast majority of politicians come from a legal background, which is not conducive to big picture thinking and end game strategy. The legal profession tends to train people in narrow focus, the case before them, and not the wider implications of the aftermath.
Bush, on the other hand, comes from a business background, which requires looking ahead and at the big picture. You spend a little more here to get something else there. If someone gives you an opening to attain a goal easier, while spending less capital, you take it, saving that capital for another time. Reid and Leahy gave him that opening. No one has been able to give a reasonable expalantion for why they would recommend a conservative, pro-life, evangelical Christian. They certainly cannot claim to know her better than Bush does.
Cronyism is a fraudulent charge, were she a run of the mill attorney with no awards who chased ambulances, then you might be able to make that case. She is easily among the top 1% of attornies in this country. So much of comments like that are driven by her not being the choice a person wanted, she wasn't the one I wanted either, I was hoping for Garza or Miguel Estrada. But, we weren't elected president, we don't get to choose.
BUMP to the rafters.
All good points. Personally, I want someone who will stick with the original intent of the Constitution. HM may well be that pick.