Now, conservatives have no defense against those Bush critics who have argued (for years) that Bush is not serious.… The neocons, the retro-cons, the social cons—they can all see the biting reality: the Bush presidency is about Bush, not them, not their ideas. Miers is his choice. And she was picked because she has been loyal to him, not to their cause.
How easily a professional suck-up can fool a narcissist who evaluates almost entirely in two-valued fashion (black-white, 'good'-'evil', 'with me'-'against me', etc.):
And neither will the cons be won over by Bush's silly assertion that Miers is a good pick because, as he said, "I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she has today." Really? Seventeen years ago, she was giving money to Al Gore and the Democratic Party. It seems she does change.
What Bush has done by nominating a sycophant (who writes to Bush as one would write to a child one sought to please):
For years, [scumbag Robert] Bork explained, many conservative jurists have toiled hard to rise through the judicial ranks—during which they have suffered the slings and arrows of the liberals—in eager, enthusiastic and plodding preparation for the historic moment at hand: when the court could be tipped, and one of them could be the tipping agent. Bush, Bork argued, just gave all these people—the best minds on the right—the finger. For Bork-loving conservatives, loyalty is the issue: Bush's loyalty to them. And Bush showed how much he cares about that.
[T]his nomination sent conservatives a harsh message: the Bush presidency is about Bush, not them.
In this one instance, at least, that seems to work in favor of the loyal and the liberal.