"Why do we keep getting nominees that may or may not become "pleasant suprises"? We voted President Bush in because he promised us judicial nominees in the mold of a Thomas or Scalia. There were plenty of qualified people who fit the bill and were not "stealth" nominees. Why is our President so prone to being cowed by the dems and rinos in the senate?"
We should have expected these kinds of nominations from Bush if the Republicans had a minority in the Senate. He is acting like a President without the votes needed. If that's the case, it reflects his lousy leadership. But what do you expect from the Schoolboy President?
Which is reality. The Gang of 14 and the inability to get a vote on Bolton showed that.
If that's the case, it reflects his lousy leadership.
How is it Bush's fault if some Senators are determined to chart a different course? They're elected for six year terms, his coattails are short, and he has very little leverage. That's just reality, like it or not.
I suspect he'd have rolled the dice on a more controversial nominee if he didn't think Miers was a reliable judicial conservative. But if you look closely at her background -- belonging to evangelical church, stickler for details, frustrated by political games on city council, etc. -- she could well be a conservative judicial bomb-thrower. Perhaps not, but Bush (who has been extraordinarily reliable on his judicial nominees to date), may be chuckling to himself over the Dems who have no idea what they're in for.
If that's the case with her, then this move was a no-brainer on his part.