Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation.
Think about it, Einstein. President Bush's credibility was boosted tremendously by the John Roberts success, while the 'Rats came off looking like petulent dimwits under the sway of the most radical elements of their party. Had the President nominated Michael Luttig, the conservatives and the Republicans would be united, the 'Rats would be sounding the same as before, and we would be having a national discussion about whether Schumer, Leahy, Kennedy, and co. are entitled to declare a certain judicial philosophy (our judicial philosophy) unsuitable for the bench; a fight we would have readily won. Instead we have a too-old, under-qualified enigma, who can only be defended through insults and obstinance directed at our political base. Congratulations on being too stupid to understand this, jerk!
Your post might have been a bit long for the person you replied to to read it....