You asked me for some people he didn't consult and I named just a few. You disparage and dismiss them. Guess I know where this is going.
I know, for example, that he discussed it with Leonard Leo, just for starters.
And how do you know that? And he should be consulted rather than others because...?
On second thought, don't bother replying: Bush is right, his critics are wrong---I get it.
This reply by you shows why we shouldn't listen to you any more.
We know, and YOU KNOW, because Leo Leonard came out and said so, and said he strongly endorsed the candidate, because in his long years working with her he has proven herself to be a highly qualified person for the job.
But now you act like you'nve never heard of him, never knew he was consulted, didn't know he endorsed her.
And then you ask why he should be consulted. Well, you KNOW he is the Vice President of the Federalist Society (the society that you falsely said Miers doesn't support). You know that we all revere them for their approach to constitutional issues.
So it isn't good for your side that the person they put in a leadership position is so certain that this nominee has what it takes and should be supported, since you (with NO evidence whatsoever) think she should withdraw.
Anybody who pretends not to know that a major player was consulted and endorsed the nominee after 2 weeks of this discussion cannot be trusted to provide factual or useful additions to the debate.
I'll apologize tomorrow when I'm not so mad at those who sling false, lying accusations just to support their side -- this anything goes mentality is totally antithetical to the principles of conservatism.
We aren't sure she is qualified. Stick to the facts. Some are truly convinced she will be an O'Conner on the bench. Say that. But don't stoop to MoveOn.Org tactics. Don't lie about her, misrepresent her record, debase her achievements, ridicule all who support her, just because you are certain that your "cause" is just.
My point is that I don't understand how all these unelected people have some right to vet nominees. And the point of specific examples is to see whether you are talking about vetting her in terms of her legal credentials, or in terms of her political credentials. And I have no clue why people like the three you named should be involved in judicial selections.
I know, for example, that he discussed it with Leonard Leo, just for starters.
Oh hell, that's a fair question that I can't really answer candidly here. But in terms of what's publicly available, he released a public statement on her nomination almost as soon as it was announced -- obviously something that was written ahead of time.
And he should be consulted rather than others because...?
As the Executive VP of the Federalist Society, he's got more knowledge regarding the judiciary than the other three put together. Plus, impeccable conservative credentials without the latent nutbag factor of Keyes or Bauer. Now I'm not saying that the President is required or obligated to consult with him. But the fact that Leo is a fan of hers and consulted with the Administration on these picks makes me more comfortable with the nomination than I might have been otherwise.
On second thought, don't bother replying: Bush is right, his critics are wrong---I get it.
I may only agree with half that statement. The pick may not have been the right pick. It may turn out to have been a terrible pick.
But I do think the tone and content of what many of the conservative critics is wrong. As someone else put it, too many conservatives are trying to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube by fooling themselves into thinking that enough foot-stamping will unravel history. It won't. And arguments like "he should have checked with Alan Keyes...." We've now got all these pundits out there basically offended that Bush didn't clear it with them first, and that strikes me as incredibly self-important.
If its a bad pick, then state the concerns publicly in rational tones. The hissy fit thrown by Coulter and her ilk are not going to make the problem any better. And venting emotionally just because you are upset....well, it looks to be like the kind of thing the NARAL gang does, and I thought we were above that.
A weakened Bush is going to be forced to nominate even worse people than Miers down the road. And there are some conservatives doing the "I'm finished with the GOP" routine that accomplishes nothing more than helping President Hilary get elected, and making Associate Justice Tribe more likely.