"No, Bush is the one that is a fool to betray his base in this manner. He represents the people."
Here's what I sincerely don't get. Why is it that you think "the people" means the far right minority of his party? Even though you are not the majority in his party, he has done well by you, I think, in his judicial appointments.
As constitutional conservatives, we believe the entire people of our Republic, good or bad, smart or dumb, left or right, are best served by decent judges who don't invent new pseudo-constitutional ideas at the drop of a hat, or find nonexistent legal doctrine in the shadow of a penumbra.
In the long run, a country run by unelected judges according to their personal whims is headed toward tyranny. That may make some people happy, and indeed it might make a great many people happy never to have to choose for themselves again, but it is not, reasonably considered, a good thing for "the people."
We're upset because a bad choice here negates all his previous good choices for the lower courts. The lower court picks are just warm ups, the Supreme Court picks are the whole game.
Don't take this the wrong way, but some people here get edgy when a poster who's been here for less than 48 hours uses expressions like these.
But I agree that Bush has done pretty well in his lower court nominations, at any rate. It's probably that fact alone which has kept the blowback from being much worse than it has been so far.
Calling someone opposed to Miers a "far right extremist super minority of the population" is not debating.
"The people" in the post mean the folks who gave money, blood, sweat, and a whole lot more to elect and re-elect this president. Yes, their voice deserves to be heard.