1) let's be like Clintonoids, and say "it's OK, everybody does it>"
This coming from someone spouting DNC talking points?
My point is, there is ample historical precedent of president appointing close associates to the court. And, in the context of what went wrong with Souter, where Papa Bush nominated a man he knew little about to try a stealth nomination, he got burned. So Bush has good reason to nominate someone he knows well under such a circumstance. So it is not cronyism if you look at all the facts and the history.
2)don't worry, as long as it's one of our guys, it'll be OK
Uh, no. I criticize Bush when I think he's wrong. If he was saying "trust me" on immigration, I would say "show me."
But judges are probably the brightest part of his administration. He has given me no reason with his nominations to think he would nominate another Souter - or even another Kennedy.
So in that context, I will be inclined to not pre-judge this nominee the way you have, and wait and see what she is about.
Me, post DNC talking points? Where? When?
Show me.
I never have, and never will, defend Souter's nomination. That doesn't make this one right; there are other and better ways to do it.
As for trusting the President, sometimes being >too< close can cloud your vision too. There was some distance between the President and all his other picks. There was some distance between Miers and all the other picks. This time, maybe they're both too close to see straight.